There is nothing inherently freedom-giving or preserving within the modern liberal movement/mindset.
For example, modern liberals would take away guns from people who have done nothing to earn that distrust.
For example, modern liberals would take away guns from people who have done nothing to earn that distrust.
All while cheerfully reciting Ben Franklin's "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."
You have to draw the line somewhere: Should you be allowed to own rocket launchers? Nerve gas? Anthrax?
As owning a gun isn't really a basic human right (feel free to disagree, but if you do so, I'll feel free to consider you a nut case), it's a matter of social contract: If the majority decides guns should be banned or only available after a mandatory psych eval, tough luck for gun owners. If the majority decides that everyone should be able to own a gun, tough luck for anti-gun activists.
Fixed it for you.
And echoing DuskStar, I'm damned glad I live in real constitutional republic that has multiple restraints on mob rule, AKA "the majority decides".
Holding a loaded gun is equivalent to having strapped explosives around everyone in your line of sight and holding the trigger.
You have the right for effective self-defense, but I have the right of not having explosives strapped around myself.
Which right weighs greater, and who should decide if not the majority (or their elected representatives)? Some dudes a few centuries ago when circumstances where vastly different and firearms far less effective?
First of all, guns are directed energy weapons in a loose sense of that phrase. Else we wouldn't have gun safety rules 2 and 4, "Never let your muzzle cover something you're not willing to destroy", and "Be sure of your target and what's behind it."
Second, in the context of self-defense (vs. hunting, which is ... safer than golf as I recall), no one is "holding" a loaded gun unless they're in a self-defense situation where the use of lethal force is justified. At that point we, or at least the vast majority of the US including most anti-gun states, have decided the possible increased danger to innocent parties is an acceptable tradeoff.
The only time I hold my concealed carry gun is when I put it in my holster before leaving my dwelling (with thumb firmly over the hammer to prevent an accidental discharge) and then the reverse when I return. Anyone out in public "holding" a gun, loaded or not, for any period of time outside of a self-defense situation is going to get arrested.
So limit the signal of the remote trigger.
The analogy is still basically sounds, ie only as flawed as any other analogy.
My point stands: Guns can make heads explode, and it's for society to decide who should hold that power.
I'm not arguing for or against banning guns, I'm arguing for the right to make that decision.
Anyone out in public "holding" a gun, loaded or not, for any period of time outside of a self-defense situation is going to get arrested.
That'll be a big comfort to anyone who got shot before the police arrived.
I'll stop here - I'm getting cranky, and if I don't I'll start calling people ugly and stupid ;)
Maybe that's true where you live, but I live in a constitutional republic where the "right to keep and bear arms" is enumerated in said constitution, and therefore it isn't up to "society" to decide who should hold that power.
Rather, "society" decides who shouldn't hold it (e.g. felons, the severely mentally ill, unsupervised children, and they have to have serious reasons for such bans), everyone else by default can.
This being in the US constitution only indicates that society in the US finds this rule very important. Putting it in the constitution makes it hard to change or abolish the rule.
Hard to change is different from unchangeable, though. Extreme example: if the constitution were unchangeable, slavery would not be constitutionally prohibited.
So, this is up to society.
I mean, they're not even willing to deal with the question of whether we have a right to bear arms (cert denied in the NY state may issue appeal). That said, it will get very interesting when Illinois goes full Constitutional Carry on June 9th, or, well, after the District courts enjoin the state from enforcing its unique besides Hawaii absolutely no issue law. And we'll have to see if they and the Circuit court will play wack-a-mole with all the localities that will ban or unduly restrict concealed carry.
(In theory the legislature could fix this, but a supermajority is needed to override Chicago home rule, and that's not happening. And the most the rest of the state is willing to give to Chicago failed.)
And thus we have a circuit split, with another decision from Maryland being appealed to the Supremes.
To quote myself:
who should decide if not the majority (or their elected representatives)? Some dudes a few centuries ago when circumstances were vastly different and firearms far less effective?
Circumstances change. Stopping to adapt is normally not a winning strategy.
And I promise to stop trying to slaughter your sacred cow - at least for now ;)
How about 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of states, which is the standard for amending the constitution, not a simple majority? If you really think what the constitution says is outdated, that's what you should be advocating, not that we simply ignore it.
Sure, "society" can change what I outlined about the enumerated RKBA. Just get 2/3rds of each house of the Congress, or a Constitutional Convention to propose it, and then the legislatures of 3/4ths of the states to ratify it.
Liberty is dangerous. If you don't like it, don't go outside.
What the majority decides is not always right or just.
Ownership of personal firearms isn't, arguably (see the disclaimer in my first post).
But then a few minutes later you say that I have the right to effective self-defense [1], and we just have to balance that with other liberties, so you're coming across a bit contradictory.
The fact remains that there are some fundamental rights we should grant all sentient beings. What these are exactly is a matter for philosophers, but I'd say most reasonable people at least agree on broad terms. In fact, I'd consider disagreement here as the definition of being unreasonable.
Then, society needs to decide how to protect these rights through specific laws, which is the mentioned balance act. There are arguments for and against the right to carry personal firearms for self protection, same as there are arguments for and against the right to universal health insurance.
All I'm saying is that citizen should be able to change the laws of the society they live in as long as fundamental rights are preserved.
2. I was using liberal in the sense of that particular issue. The opinion that homosexual males engaging in sexual relations should be banned and/or regulated would probably be described as conservative and/or repressive.
3. Maybe I should have used 'progressive' rather than 'liberal?'
In the US, libertarians are branded as conservatives. I like how you paired conservatism with repression. Note that the most severe government actions in modern times have been done by socialist governments, not conservative.
Anyway, politically, libertarians believe in gay rights as well as the rights to self defense.
Progressives typically believe in one and not the other.
So yes, liberal is not the word you wanted to use to describe those who would restrict a person's right to self defense if you were interested in clarity.
Classical liberalism is what is colloquially known as libertarianism in today's politics so I would suggest that if you don't want to be confused next time, use a more appropriate term.
Nothing to do with guns, really. That was just the example I came up with off the top of my head.
| Jamaica doesn't deserve its Press Freedom Index
| ranking to be better than Canada's because of gay
| rights. This is wrong.
It's a shame that distrust is your default M.O.
Now here is where you draw some arbitrary line where on one side is liberty or some other overloaded emotionally charged word and on the other are things that don't qualify as liberty.
My line is different than yours. It does not mean that I am "against freedom" anymore than you are a horrible fascist denying my inherent rights as a human to own a tank.
Don't know how many civilian tanks out there really have operable canon, but there is a mechanism whereby a civilian can own a "destructive device", it and each round of ammo for it subject to a $200 tax. I've heard this coming into play for people who take boats in dangerous waters, getting RPGs with the appropriate licenses.
Machine gun ownership is widespread; the number in public circulation got capped in 1986, but there are a quarter million at last count. Again, you need the license/$200 tax (was ~$3,500 in 2013 dollars when the law was passed in 1934), but the mechanism exists with many using it.
The same is true of free speech. You do actually have limits, though choose not to recognize them. For example, you cannot make various types of death threats. You can be sued for libel. You cannot speak copyrighted works. It may be ok to say that atheists or gay people should die, but try saying that about some of your authority figures and see what happens.
So many people have these very strong notions of black and white when it comes to these sorts of political issues. In reality, none of these issues are black and white.
Errr, I'm not upstream of you on this sub-debate, I just wanted to point out you had some of your facts wrong.
And as it turns out, in a way that supports your point. We do draw lines, and "undirected" weapons from grenades to "mini-nukes" is one of them.
Although I'd note that most gun control is prior restraint, something that is considered to be illegitimate with speech in the US.
Unfortunately it's very difficult to stop a determined opponent without using "lethal force", in the case of guns a maiming or deadly central nervous system hit, or causing them to lose enough blood (a large fraction of opponents, though, will stop combat upon getting hit the first time). There aren't any other practical options.
If your question includes hunting, I can continue about it.
For target practice, they don't need to be "lethal", and generally aren't used with ammunition designed for increased effectiveness in live targets. The exception is practicing for self-defense, you need at least some of that to be with service ammo for a bunch of reasons. Lots of government units buy in bulk where the price difference for service ammo isn't large and use the same thing for all purposes, which I'm sure saves in administrative costs and ensures no one accidently goes out on the street with less effective target ammo.
"Set phasers to stun" and all that; a nice idea, but way beyond the foreseeable future.