Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why not restrict gun ownership to companies and authorized organizations that are licensed to operate, maintain, and provide firearms? People who want to hunt could get a gun from one of these companies, go hunting, and then return the gun when done. Also, if you enjoy firing a gun, you can go to the local shooting range, and go shooting with the guns that are provided by the shooting range. If you like shooting pistols, or automatic weapons, just go to the shooting range that has them. If you need a gun for protection during a backpacking trip in a dangerous place with wild animals, you can borrow the gun and then when you are done with the trip, you simply return the gun to the park ranger.
Why not make guns something you use for a specific purpose, and then return when you are done? Why is necessary for individuals to actually own the gun to make use of it?
Do they even try to educate the children in public school about the Bill of Rights?
Were you sick that week?
Or were you even born & raised in the USA?
Why not restrict gun ownership to companies and authorized organizations that are licensed to operate, maintain, and provide firearms? People who want to hunt could get a gun from one of these companies, go hunting, and then return the gun when done. Also, if you enjoy firing a gun, you can go to the local shooting range, and go shooting with the guns that are provided by the shooting range. If you like shooting pistols, or automatic weapons, just go to the shooting range that has them. If you need a gun for protection during a backpacking trip in a dangerous place with wild animals, you can borrow the gun and then when you are done with the trip, you simply return the gun to the park ranger.
Why not make guns something you use for a specific purpose, and then return when you are done? Why is necessary for individuals to actually own the gun to make use of it?
I believe firearms should be regulated somewhat heavily, but firearms are private property and should also be allowed in the hands of citizens. Regulating certain types of firearms or accessories is reasonable imo.
So, no. That’s not a reasonable or acceptable “compromise.”
There's no compromise position on my natural individual rights. I have them as a condition of existence and people like the OP want to take them away. It's binary, so there is no middle ground.
I have the natural right of self-defense. The right to keep and bear arms follows from that right to self-defense. This concept of self-defense is not what the government has decided could someday pose a threat to me, but what I, myself, deem a possible threat. One of those legitimate, very real threats is MY OWN GOVERNMENT, an the history books are quite clear on this across all time, cultures and geography - ALL GOVERNMENTS EVOLVE TOWARDS TYRANNY. It's not if, it's when.
The government wants to say that their standing army, national guard and various levels of police are the protection that removes the need for me to keep and bear arms...but what happens when that standing army, national guard and various levels of police are tasked with oppression of the people and go from being defenders to being our subduers? What then? This was the thinking behind the 2nd Amendment. Not hunting, burglars, sport shooting...but the very real, very recent threat of tyranny at the hands of the controlling government. That our government has morphed into King George III slowly enough for nobody to notice the tyranny does not make them less of a threat to liberty, just stealthier.
I keep and bear arm for self-defense primarily, and partially for recreation/sport. It is my natural right and is a condition of my existence. There is no compromise. If you think I should not possess firearms, come take them yourself. Don't hire an agent of tyranny to do your dirty work, have the guts to implement your tyrannical desires with your own two hands.
Putting aside the Second Amendment for the moment, how does one have a "natural right" to carry firearms. Humans have existed for 6 million years give or take. Firearms have existed for less than 600. The natural right to own a firearms is no more natural than the natural right to carry an iphone.
But the natural right to self-defense, you say? I don't see how your right to self defense mandates that everyone can carry a firearm. Why does your natural right to self-defense permit you to carry a firearm but not, say, anti-aircraft battery or the right to litter your yard with land mines?
People have the right to defend themselves, but the availability of the tools they use to do so have to be considered in the context of broader societal benefits.
Putting aside the Second Amendment for the moment, how does one have a "natural right" to carry firearms. Humans have existed for 6 million years give or take. Firearms have existed for less than 600. The natural right to own a firearms is no more natural than the natural right to carry an iphone.
But the natural right to self-defense, you say? I don't see how your right to self defense mandates that everyone can carry a firearm. Why does your natural right to self-defense permit you to carry a firearm but not, say, anti-aircraft battery or the right to litter your yard with land mines?
People have the right to defend themselves, but the availability of the tools they use to do so have to be considered in the context of broader societal benefits.
The natural right to pick up the most lethal weapon around you, to fend off all aggression, has been something only those with the same or greater weaponry live to tell about.
Their natural right to self preservation, using the most modern and efficient tools available.
Limit me, and it isn't a right, it is a privilege the masters may or may not allow.
Who is your MASTER?
I'll tell you.... The person armed better than you.
Putting aside the Second Amendment for the moment, how does one have a "natural right" to carry firearms. Humans have existed for 6 million years give or take. Firearms have existed for less than 600. The natural right to own a firearms is no more natural than the natural right to carry an iphone.
But the natural right to self-defense, you say? I don't see how your right to self defense mandates that everyone can carry a firearm. Why does your natural right to self-defense permit you to carry a firearm but not, say, anti-aircraft battery or the right to litter your yard with land mines?
People have the right to defend themselves, but the availability of the tools they use to do so have to be considered in the context of broader societal benefits.
The internet did not exist 6 millions year ago, so we can conclude that 1A is not including the internet.
Putting aside the Second Amendment for the moment, how does one have a "natural right" to carry firearms.
The right to procure and wield those tools with a primary function of self defense. If I have a natural right of self-defense and a natural right to own property, then it follows that I have a natural right to procure/trade for/build the tools/items necessary and proper to the purpose of self-defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey
Humans have existed for 6 million years give or take. Firearms have existed for less than 600. The natural right to own a firearms is no more natural than the natural right to carry an iphone.
Humans have been fashioning tools/weapons to use for self-defense since Neanderthal Man. The stone age spear and the sling being the first examples of ranged weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey
But the natural right to self-defense, you say? I don't see how your right to self defense mandates that everyone can carry a firearm. Why does your natural right to self-defense permit you to carry a firearm but not, say, anti-aircraft battery or the right to litter your yard with land mines?
My natural right of self-defense does allow me to own an anti-aircraft battery or fill my property with land mines. Neither is practical, but both have very specific defense uses. In the case of defense against aircraft, the more effective individual defense is hiding, and land mines on my property is less effective than an accurate long range rifle system that ends threats before they reach my property, and rifles can be reloaded. But sure, if I can build/trade for land mines and flak guns...why not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey
People have the right to defend themselves, but the availability of the tools they use to do so have to be considered in the context of broader societal benefits.
The broadest societal benefit weapons confer is the one that keeps a tyrannical government in check, therefore, at a minimum, the citizen should absolutely have the tools that are the match of what the government's infantry forces would carry. Infantry are what decide wars because men with small arms are what secure objectives, not missiles, aircraft and mechanized armor.
There is no greater societal benefit than robbing government of their ability to easily remake/oppress/subjugate that society.
My natural right of self-defense does allow me to own an anti-aircraft battery or fill my property with land mines. Neither is practical, but both have very specific defense uses. In the case of defense against aircraft, the more effective individual defense is hiding, and land mines on my property is less effective than an accurate long range rifle system that ends threats before they reach my property, and rifles can be reloaded. But sure, if I can build/trade for land mines and flak guns...why not?
And where do you fall on hydrogen bombs? If you can afford them, should you be permitted to purchase and own them?
The natural right to pick up the most lethal weapon around you, to fend off all aggression, has been something only those with the same or greater weaponry live to tell about.
Their natural right to self preservation, using the most modern and efficient tools available.
Limit me, and it isn't a right, it is a privilege the masters may or may not allow.
Who is your MASTER?
I'll tell you.... The person armed better than you.
Yes, we are all aware that you think Nikolas Cruz should still be permitted to carry firearms. Thank you for weighing in with your nonsense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
