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.
No, not another gun control thread but it is related.
We've expanded the freedom of speech to include burning flags and a host of other activities that were never included in the Constitution or The Bill of Rights. Abortion has become a right. Go through the list of "rights" and they are all expanded through time. There are some restrictions but in the balance, the rights are greatly expanded from anything envisioned when the founding documents were drafted. All except one.
Some of the rights expanded over time have resulted in the deaths of many people. According to a very large percentage of people in the US, the right to have an abortion has killed uncountable numbers of human beings yet when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, somehow certain people want to use the standards in place hundreds of years ago to decide the limits on those rights.
How many activities taken for granted today and protected as rights were never described in years long past, yet evolution of the founding documents is cited as a reason for the expansion of rights to cover those activities?
The expansion of some of the rights to cover certain activities can be seen as for the common good unless you limit who can be considered as part of the common good. When those deciding what is a right and what is not also decide who is part of the common good, the ends justify the means.
So what social mechanism allows such a disparity between what rights are going to be expanded and what rights will be restricted?
Well 150 years ago the nation severely restricted the rights of one group of humans to own another. Fifty years ago we restricted the rights of any group of citizens to deny the power to discriminate against another and today we are attempting to restrict that right even further. So your question boils down to a half full/half empty argument. By "expanding" rights we also restrict the rights other competing rights, in the case of abortion the right of the some portion of society from dictating the reproductive rights of women - by the way, at no time in the nations history did the "unborn" have rights.
Well 150 years ago the nation severely restricted the rights of one group of humans to own another. Fifty years ago we restricted the rights of any group of citizens to deny the power to discriminate against another and today we are attempting to restrict that right even further. So your question boils down to a half full/half empty argument. By "expanding" rights we also restrict the rights other competing rights, in the case of abortion the right of the some portion of society from dictating the reproductive rights of women - by the way, at no time in the nations history did the "unborn" have rights.
I agree with your line of thinking; "rights" are interpretive. You may feel you have the right to smoke in any setting, while feel I have the right to not breath someone else's carcinogens. You may feel you have the right to own every weapon created on the planet, while I feel I have the right to live in a society where I don't have to fear every shifty-eyed loner wearing armor and pulling out a full-auto Uzi to me and a dozen others in any random setting. In the end, laws are in place to protect the public, for the greater good of the majority.
I agree with your line of thinking; "rights" are interpretive. You may feel you have the right to smoke in any setting, while feel I have the right to not breath someone else's carcinogens. You may feel you have the right to own every weapon created on the planet, while I feel I have the right to live in a society where I don't have to fear every shifty-eyed loner wearing armor and pulling out a full-auto Uzi to me and a dozen others in any random setting. In the end, laws are in place to protect the public, for the greater good of the majority.
Are you bothered by the person next to you in a restaurant having a pack of cigarettes in there pocket? is it OK to have them as long as they do not use them?
Here's the thing the Constitution does not give you the right to feel anything! Your feelings are yours and yours alone.
You can not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens because of feelings.
Do you think that the police or other Gov. agency should single out certain people in society because of how they look or dress?, that would be using feelings and not facts.
Here's an example, members of the KKK felt that blacks and other minorities should be second class citizens, but fortunately there feelings meant nothing to the supreme court and the Constitution.
Well 150 years ago the nation severely restricted the rights of one group of humans to own another. Fifty years ago we restricted the rights of any group of citizens to deny the power to discriminate against another and today we are attempting to restrict that right even further. So your question boils down to a half full/half empty argument. By "expanding" rights we also restrict the rights other competing rights, in the case of abortion the right of the some portion of society from dictating the reproductive rights of women - by the way, at no time in the nations history did the "unborn" have rights.
I'm not so sure about this being true, At the founding of the country they may not have seen a child,baby,fetus in the womb as anything other than a human being with inalienable rights, did they specify "unborn" no but at that time it probably did not seem relevant.
In any case I think the country as a whole needs to decide at what point a fetus is considered a human being with all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution 6, 8, 10, 20 weeks whatever, mandate this into fed law and be done with it. of course the foaming at the mouth fringe on both sides will not be happy, but the issue will be finally done with. sorry for straying of topic
Are you bothered by the person next to you in a restaurant having a pack of cigarettes in there pocket? is it OK to have them as long as they do not use them?
Here's the thing the Constitution does not give you the right to feel anything! Your feelings are yours and yours alone.
You can not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens because of feelings.
Do you think that the police or other Gov. agency should single out certain people in society because of how they look or dress?, that would be using feelings and not facts.
Here's an example, members of the KKK felt that blacks and other minorities should be second class citizens, but fortunately there feelings meant nothing to the supreme court and the Constitution.
bill
Bill, when your "rights" impose on my right to live in good health and not in fear of my family being murdered because a minority of people feel they should be as well-armed as the largest military on Earth, those "rights" become "oppression". I refuse to have my society held hostage over an amendment which was written when there were only a few thousand "Americans" surrounded by African slaves and natives who were not welcoming to their conquistador way of life.
Bill, when your "rights" impose on my right to live in good health and not in fear of my family being murdered because a minority of people feel they should be as well-armed as the largest military on Earth, those "rights" become "oppression". I refuse to have my society held hostage over an amendment which was written when there were only a few thousand "Americans" surrounded by African slaves and natives who were not welcoming to their conquistador way of life.
As I said your feelings of fear is not a protected right. You have no Constitutional right to not feel fear!(fear is a personal problem not a right). But I do have a Constitutional right to carry a firearm, If you don't like it try to change it or move to some other country.
What would the expansion of the 2nd ammedment rights be? The right to own grenade launchers? Tanks? Tactical nukes? You can already own some of that anyway. LOL
The right to own guns is still there, but they are regulated much like cars and the previously mentioned abortions. Ditto certain medicines, chemicals, etc. A free-for-all is not in society's best interests with the object/action can be deadly.
Actually abortion has an interesting history. It was perfectly legal to have an abortion before the woman quickened(i.e. Her belly showed signs of pregnancy) till the 19th century. They thought the swelling of the belly was caused by the soul entering the unborn child. Abortion after that was considered murder and the woman could be killed for it. What happened was that in the 19th century our understand of pregnancy changed (i.e. fetus can be quite developed before the belly swelled).
The people who banned abortion were not the theologians but the equivalent of 19th century feminists and the reason it was banned was less to protect the unborn and more to protect the woman having the abortion. The procedure was much more dangerous in a world where doctors have barely caught on to the germ theory of disease. Lack antibiotics and transfuse blood and lack all our medical tools. Abortion was more dangerous than pregnancy till the 1930ies!
Bill, when your "rights" impose on my right to live in good health and not in fear of my family being murdered because a minority of people feel they should be as well-armed as the largest military on Earth, those "rights" become "oppression". I refuse to have my society held hostage over an amendment which was written when there were only a few thousand "Americans" surrounded by African slaves and natives who were not welcoming to their conquistador way of life.
I feel that this issue is more about what sort of society we want for ourselves, than an issue of rights. Most of us accept that people have the right to "bear arms" because it so stated in a constitutional amendment. But we also, usually, accept that rights can be regulated by the state. The issue I think is whether we want to live in a throwback state where personal security is guaranteed by ourselves as bearers of weapons, or as employers of bodyguards, or whether we want to finance a professional class of security people.
In times of weakened central governments or if governments are unresponsive to citizens, you can understand why people want to carry arms. With a stronger government which does provide security and is responsive to citizens' needs, then logically, we would want to delegate a class of people to provide security, and to safeguard rights. Imagine an America where almost everyone carried a concealed weapon. I don't think I would feel secure. I might have to carry one too, which I really don't want to do.
In an armed (more fully than now) society, you will have more accidental shootings, more impulse killings, more shooting of people who meant no harm but whose actions seemed at the moment threatening. Imagine, learning gun safety at school instead of music or PE. Imagine, hearing shooting at numerous ranges throughout a city. Imagine fearing ever to disagree with someone at a public meeting for fear of being shot. Imagine waking up in the night to a prowler, and discovering after shooting that the prowler is your son. These could become everyday events with the spread of concealed carry. It is happening now, actually.
I really don't see how wholesale arming of people will make our society better or safer. I do see this desire as a throwback to a more primitive time. All of this energy directed to keep guns freely available to everyone could better be directed to figuring out how to catch criminals, punish them commensurately, and make our government leaders pay attention to other, important issues.
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.
