Will the Second Amendment survive?

[lookout123]

i would suggest that most law-abiding gun carrying citizens would respond the same way to a spilled drink with or without a gun.

have you ever known a guy who was literally a bad ass? a guy who if he wanted to, could probably end your life with just his hands? a guy who could walk into any situation without fear because he was confident in his abilities? Generally these guys are soft spoken mellow characters who will avoid violence in any way possible. Why? because they are secure and confident and they have no point to prove.

the same can be said about a responsible gun carrier. the gun is for emergency use only after all other avenues have been explored.

it is the responsible law abiding citizen that will no longer be carrying a weapon if the weapon is outlawed. the criminal is a criminal - laws don't really mean that much to them anyway.

[icileparadise]

I'm just saying that guns and firearms shock the British. In Europe as a whole they have more access to firearms with different rules - I still am bemused at the Itailian carrobernerie having a thick cord attached to their pistols and ut belts. In Britain the people don't want guns.

[xoxoxoBruce]

By what authority do you speak for the British people?

[regular.joe]

Ali you are absolutely right. I shouldn't carry a gun unless I'm prepared to use it to full affect. Good point too.

[Undertoad]

Radar is a purist, and he hates yer guts.

[Radar]

I am a strict Constitutional constructionist and a pure libertarian, but I don't hate people who disagree with me unless they try to legislate their opinions or religious doctrine onto me or infringe upon my unalienable rights.

[piercehawkeye45]

Radar, it almost impossible to disagree with you without you thinking we are trying to legislate our opinions or religious doctrine onto you or infringe upon your "unalienable rights".

I've said this many times, gun culture is much different from place to place in America. All the pro-gunners I've seen here talk from a responsible respectable gun culture. I am assuming where you guys are from, a gun is moral responsibility where when you are carrying, your moral level should be even greater than when you are not carrying. If the whole country was like this, then it would be very rational to not have any gun restrictions.

But unfortunately the entire country does not share this gun culture. If you go to the inner city or a neighborhood that has a lot of drug dealings, guns are not a moral responsibility, but a tool to enforce one's power on others. Once we get a change in gun mindset and culture, it is only rational to look over the current laws and see if maybe change is in order. I am not advocating any change, just that it would be irrational and foolish to refuse to take a look at our situation.

I do not have a strong stance in this debate but I know for a fact that a universal gun law in the United States will never work because of the two completely opposite gun cultures in our country. Guns laws should be made by either the state or local community, not the people in Washington.

[Radar]

Gun laws should not be made by the local, state, or federal government. No government at any level has any legitimate authority to place any restrictions or limitations on gun ownership.

We are born with an UNLIMITED right to keep and bear any number of any type of weapon we want with any kind of ammo we want without any government permission, registration, or oversight.

As long as people don't try to make laws that place limitations or restrictions on the number of weapons, type of weapons, or kind of ammunition or body armor civilians may own, I don't hate them.

If they support any restrictions, registration, waiting periods, etc. they are an enemy of liberty and are causing deaths to law abiding people. These people are my enemy.

[piercehawkeye45]

If you can prove that we are born with UNLIMITED rights to keep and bear any number of any type of weapon we want with any kind of ammo we want without any government permission, registration, or oversight I will agree with you.

You are trying to make philosophy fact Radar, it just doesn't work. If a society agrees that we have the right to an UNLIMITED right to keep and bear arms then fine, let them have it but if a society doesn't agree that we have an UNLIMITED right to keep and bear arms then gun laws should be in place.

You cannot prove that the universe gives us rights, so don't force it down other people's throats. If you really want the right to bear arms, move to a place that will allow you too or protest to change/preserve your wanted right. If you don't want to move or you cannot change/preserve your wanted right, than you have to accept the rulings in that area. Its that simple.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

You cannot prove that the universe gives us rights, so don't force it down other people's throats.

But our country was founded on this principle.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by jinx

But our country was founded on this principle.

And isn't that the crux of the argument here. Many of us believe that this place, this society, gave us those rights by virtue of our birth place and establishment of citizenship. Therefore the problem in our society as I see is that not that we don't have that right but we now have a whole host of individuals telling us we no longer have that right. Our society and government can use a number of ways to remove those rights and some already do so. Most gun legislation has been pushed down from the Federal level to one of states rights for regulation, without removing our rights to keep and bare arms in accordance with the Constitution as it was written. I am certainly not going to tell other countries that they should grant the same rights as our Constitution and I do not expect others, who have not ever been given any such rights, to tell me that I do not have a right to them. And yet we are constantly being told by certain members of Congress and special interest groups that I should not have the rights afforded to me by the Constitution.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

If you can prove that we are born with UNLIMITED rights to keep and bear any number of any type of weapon we want with any kind of ammo we want without any government permission, registration, or oversight I will agree with you.

You are trying to make philosophy fact Radar, it just doesn't work. If a society agrees that we have the right to an UNLIMITED right to keep and bear arms then fine, let them have it but if a society doesn't agree that we have an UNLIMITED right to keep and bear arms then gun laws should be in place.

You cannot prove that the universe gives us rights, so don't force it down other people's throats. If you really want the right to bear arms, move to a place that will allow you too or protest to change/preserve your wanted right. If you don't want to move or you cannot change/preserve your wanted right, than you have to accept the rulings in that area. Its that simple.

My rights don't come from "society" and "society" has absolutely zero authority over my rights. Society is made up of individuals and individuals have rights, not society. And the rights of a billion people do not supersede those of a single individual.

My rights don't change depending on which culture or "society" I happen to live within.

If you deny that unalienable rights exist, I can kill, rob, rape, or otherwise abuse you and you have nothing to complain about.

If you believe we have the right to life, you believe we have the right to defend that life by any means necessary. If you claim I don't have the unlimited right to keep and bear any number of any type of weapon I choose, you deny that I, or that YOU have the right to life.

If you think the exercise of my rights is shoving something down your throat, then fine I hope you choke on it. I'm not saying YOU must own guns or infringing on your rights, but those who want to make guns illegal ARE infringing my my rights and will pay with their lives if they push too far. I and the other gun owners will use our guns to defend this unalienable right.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

If you can prove that we are born with UNLIMITED rights to keep and bear any number of any type of weapon we want with any kind of ammo we want without any government permission, registration, or oversight I will agree with you.

I wouldn't take this kind of bait; Robert J. Ringer's writing shows us that rights are not unlimited, but in a balance. A right restricted is a right preserved, to paraphrase him; the right to shout "Fire!" aloud is restricted in, say, a theater; the liberty to swing a fist ends at the tip of the other fellow's nose, etc. So, no, not wholly unlimited -- the art of the thing is to achieve the greatest right at the least practicable restriction. Pierce seems altogether excessive about his restrictions, which is altogether typical of the non-firearm-oriented persons of great ignorance.

They think they are going to thrash libertarians and gun people on points such as this. Unfortunately, for those with greater understanding of the matter, these points are as invalid as they are stubbornly held by the persons of ignorance. There is no worth in overdoing ammunition restrictions. There is very little republican, that is republic-preserving, worth in doing ammunition restrictions of any sort, really.

You are trying to make philosophy fact Radar, it just doesn't work.

This is not as a rule bad; you're just pretending it is because this philosophy doesn't happen to be agreeable to you. Making a philosophy fact is exactly the thing that started our nation, I'll have you keep permanently in mind.

If a society agrees that we have the right to an UNLIMITED right to keep and bear arms then fine, let them have it but if a society doesn't agree that we have an UNLIMITED right to keep and bear arms then gun laws should be in place.

Id est, the current state of affairs -- which is always subject to suitable modification if some details are unsatisfactory. Amend and repeal.

You cannot prove that the universe gives us rights, so don't force it down other people's throats. If you really want the right to bear arms, move to a place that will allow you too or protest to change/preserve your wanted right. If you don't want to move or you cannot change/preserve your wanted right, than you have to accept the rulings in that area. Its that simple.

This is not subject to proof or to disproof, Pierce. That you would complain about someone telling you of the freer way and insist on taking the less free way tells us something about your thinking: that it is not free, nor remarkably adult.

At its best, the Libertarian Party is the Party of Adult Thinking. This sometimes leaves the libertarian thinker just a bit uncomfortable. But that's the price of freedom -- and if you can have freedom at that price, that's a damned good bargain.

[Aliantha]

The matter of rights has always been contentious. The problem is that all rights overlap other people's rights. One man can't have a right without it affecting someone else's rights somehow. That's why gun ownership and the fact that pro-gunners have such a hard time when they resort to the 'it's my right' argument. The simple act of them saying they have the right to carry a weapon infringes on another persons right to their particular way of life.

That's why I don't believe the second ammendment is worded correctly and that it will eventually fail.

"I have the right" is not a good enough argument anymore, and it never was.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

The simple act of them saying they have the right to carry a weapon infringes on another persons right to their particular way of life.

What??? No it doesn't, lol.

That's why I don't believe the second ammendment is worded correctly and that it will eventually fail.

And how would you have worded it, keeping the intent in mind of course...