I understand that logic. So then another way of putting it is that the government has certain powers that it can use to uphold the social contract. Is this a good way to put it? Look what you have to do though to make it so that not killing and attacking are the same, you have to deny distinctions that might be helpful to make. For example, a water gun could potentially kill a person, but that doesn't make it an "attack" per say. It's not an "attacking with water", it's "squirting with water"
No. I haven't made that claim at all. I'm a woman. What are you talking about? I haven't even made a normative claim have I? All I have done is argue about how we ought to frame the gun control debate argument.
I'm done here. Now you're not telling the truth. You need to reread what YOU said in your scenario and then tell me how it isn't asking us to trust that the attacker isn't trying to kill you. Nonsense. You're better than this
If I'm talking about a concept that people may not understand then wouldn't it help to pump their intuitions in the right direction? I am not actually making the claim about attacking people. It's an example of why negative rights aren't a good way to analyze this topic. It helps to explain when we think about the 2nd amendment we usually frame it as a right to own guns, even though it's technically a negative right. All I am doing is making a meta claim because clearly in the last few years of this argument nothing has been accomplished. If you can't see what I'm doing, it's not my fault.
I get all the security I need from my 45ACP, my 12 gauge, and my 5.56x45 carbine with its high cap mags.
What you're wanting is a perfect world. That's not how the real world works. We have to ASSUME that your life is in danger if a gun is pulled. It's the law of self preservation and it's why we'll always be able to defend ourselves.
Interesting comment. You are correct that the 2nd Amendment is a negative right of the Feds (and States) to infringe upon ownership and access to firearms and blade weapons. I have actually never thought of it that way.
Jeeze @ArmySoldier did NOT your drill instructors teach you NEVER to ASS-U-ME. Youre not even supposed to use that WORD either. Say rather "presume", or "acknowledge", or "suppose" etc.
That's why my argument was intuition pumping. Of course it's about self defense and the right to preserve life. What I'm pointing out is your argument is a positive right argument, even though the constitution is an example of negative rights.
There is nothing to debate about guns. We have a 2nd Amendment and we have a recent SCOTUS case -- Heller V. DC. What would you like to discuss about those two authoritative pronouncements -- the first by the Founding Freemasons and the second by the Roberts' Court ??
Thank you, I didn't think of it myself until a couple of months ago actually. I'm glad you understand the basics of what I'm getting at.
Your right, it's not a debate on guns. I'm not arguing anything about guns so much as it's an argument on framing. Do we have positive rights or negative rights when it comes to guns? I don't want to get into constitutionality, I think we can make a stronger claim and turn it into an empirical one by framing it this way.
Ok, fair enough. Could you elaborate in a better way for me? In other words, since I'm not very smart, can you dumb it down for me so I can better understand what you mean?
I think we teach/brainwash little kids in preschool and elementary that "freedom" is the right to vote. Technically that definition is a bit flawed. However most of us have been brainwashed that way, so that is what we now think is true.
Ok good! So stop then! You are not a slimy civilian. You are one of Uncle Sam's finest !! Remember that !!
I think your smart, it's just that the way these conversations usually go it's one side vs another so we think of it like that. A negative right is something the government can not do. For example the first amendment is that the state shall not infringe upon speech. A positive right is something the government is obliged to do, like the right to a trial. What I'm getting at is that we normally frame the gun control argument is as a positive rights argument, ie we have the right to own firearms, even though technically it's a negative right (ie the government shall not infringe upon the right to own firearms).
What I'm going to ultimately say with this is that we can now measure something that is more concrete than concepts like liberty and freedom. We can use the positive right to own fire arms and compare that to the right to life as a scientific argument where the variables are more agreed upon.
Respectfully, I see what you're saying but disagree with the philosophy behind it; at least regarding this issue. Social contracts are between people. Government is a regulatory body that creates the laws that define that contract. When one is talking about the right of self-defense government has no way to regulate that. As a society we ban murder and assault, but that does not prevent someone from choosing to violate the social compact by attacking another person. When one individual attacks another he is violating the social contract, and thus rejects the protections he receives under that contract. When he attacks an innocent person it then becomes the right of the person he is attacking to defend themselves with all justifiable force. BUT.... if the "water gun" has been painted to look like a real gun, then pointing it at someone else amounts to an attack that justifies acting in defense of yourself. There are no "distinctions" when it comes to personal defense. Again, if any reasonable person under the same circumstances would feel at risk of death or great bodily injury, then reacting to that perception with deadly force is warranted. If you point a gun that looks like a real gun at another person, then legally that gun is a real gun, and if the wielder of that water gun gets shot then his death is still justifiable self-defense.
Liberty and freedom in ancient Greek are the same thing. They both mean the absence of foreign rule. FYI.
