Alright, that's fair enough, but could we then say that from the social contract we have certain duties to act the way we do? We could frame this without even considering the government. The social contract gives us certain duties in the form of rights to uphold, and the government enforces the contracts. I'm not disagreeing with you on this, I agree. I'm pointing out that social contracts are more complex then we make them to appear.
I did not know that. Thank you. Well I mean I have a major in philosophy so let's see who gets the last laugh on that.
Inherent in your statement is that we DO HAVE that right to own and have access to guns. This is why people get confused on both sides of the issue. Those who hate guns insist there is no such right. These people include Ruth Bader Ginsberg (may she die and rot soon), Stephen Breyer (may he also), and Sonja Sotomayor (may a car or truck hit her soon). Those who love guns insist that there is. These people include John Roberts (may God bless him), Anthony Kennedy (the most consummate best SCOTUS justice there ever was), Clarence Thomas (what is this pubic hair doing in my coke?), and Samuel Alito. We do not know what Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch believes yet on this issue. It is a hot button issue for almost everyone. Everyone either loves guns or hates them.
Your right, it's also driven in party by my hatred of negative rights. I think they're stupid for all sorts of reasons but that's a separate issue. I'm not a constitutional scholar so I don't really know about it on that end but I think what this can also show is that most people see this as a positive rights argument, but the normative claims that come out of it are different.
Ok great !! I am putting you @Kranes56 onto my VIP list (following). I took Philosophy in college too but not my major. My majors were microbiology and finance. But I have read a lot of Philosophy since then as well. I always capitalize Philosophy, Religion, and Science because these are the 3 most important things that we do or ever will do.
I think if you will think about it more you will come to see it as both the enumeration of a positive (a well regulated militia) and a negative (shall not be infringed) right each.
So I major in Philosophy and Political Science and I love it to death. Philosophy is really fun if you can understand what the person your reading is saying. That's an interesting idea. I haven't thought about it like that. I usually only focus on the right to own firearms.
That would only make sense if the Second Amendment were composed of two independent clauses joined by a conjunction or separated by a period. But that clearly is NOT the case. It's composed of an independent clause which is modified by a dependent clause (the clause about the militia).
Heller V. DC is our best and most current legal interpretation at the moment. In it Scalia goes into deep detail back to the 1500's of the Englishman's right to own, wear, transport, and have access to firearms and swords. He uses this to establish that the right itself predates the Constitution and Bill Of Rights in America. Ergo the positive right preexists, for Englishmen and Americans, and the 2nd Amendment precludes its abridgment. Ironically the English in England have long since lost this right when their Kings and Queens began disarming Catholics there. In the USA the same thing started happening with freed Negro slaves. You may enjoy reading Heller yourself, particularly if this issue interests you: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
ever see the Movie with Clint Eastwood called THE ROOKIE. Charlie Sheen's millionaire banker father (Sheen is The Rookie) asks Clint to Guarantee his son won't hurt and clint says IF YOU WANT A GUARANTEE---buy a TOASTER!!
The only people the second amendment does not make sense to are those who want to ban guns are realize they are engaging in an attack upon the constitution.
I suppose you can look at it that way; up to a point anyway. In some applications I can agree with that point. However, when it comes to the right of self-defense it becomes infinitely simpler. Simple survival.
we have all sacrificed personal liberty and freedom in order to have some safety. we respect speed limits. we respect Dont Walk lights. we respect Stop Signs. we don't try to buy illegal explosives or guns. we don't communicate with terrorists. we pay taxes so as to fund our military, police, fire department, ems.
There are some things we could improve but the first person who tries to take away any one of my various rifles, shotguns, handguns, compound and re-curve bows or even my various knives including my favorite set of Military Special Forces Throwing Knives.....first person who tries to take any of those away from me.......I will take a Bic Pen and slice open their Carotid Artery!! AA
I have had people threaten me, many it has been obvious were being rhetorical, but I once had a rather large fellow in a pub look me in the eye and tell me he was going to kick my a$$ just because. I asked him if he was serious, he replied by restating it again luod enough for others to hear and turn their attention toward us and he began to ball his fists and shift his weight... I took it as a credible threat and figured if he landed the first punch, given his size, he'd like do as he said. So I dropped him with a punch in the throat, and restrained him with a painful hold until the detail police were summoned from outside. They heard the story from me, confirmed by others. The detail had summoned a squad and when on duty officers appeared on the scene, I, figuring it was the liquor talking and I had dusted him pretty well, suggested the just eject him, but, when they went to toss him, he resisted hitting one of them. Someone asked when he was being handcuffed for transport, what he had done... one of the officers responded, 'committed the high crime of stupidity'. The point of that story was, there are times when an immediate threat can be discerned and in such a case, whether I had yet been attacked or not, I will react. But, for those, ready to reach into the 'you can always make such a claim to get away with a first strike' I would say, It takes a lot to make me concerned about my safety, intention was announced in front of witnesses, and the individual not only had the potential for causing harm, but was preparing to do so. Fortunately, I wasn't arrested, or sued and therefore didn't need to defend my actions, but in retrospect, I would have done things no differently and would have been ok with my chances in court. In your scenario, anyone making threats of violence against you person to coerce you into an action you don't want to do is already violating your person and I believe you have the right to respond appropriately; shooting the fellow would' have been appropriate because there was no indication of a weapon and I can defend myself against most, but I don't ascribe to the Hollywood notion of ethics that suggests I let him draw first... that isn't a credible survival tactic.
what sort of recurve bows. Used to be a national pro staff for hoyt many years ago after being the same for SKY and MARTIN (I was the last AURORA staff shooter). I have a ton of Olympic recurve bows and have competed nationally with recurve, compound and x-bow
OK I have several compound bows and several re-curve bows as well but what I am MOST PROUD OF is a RE-CURVE BOW I MADE MYSELF!!!! It is beautiful!! And is just a DREAM to use!! I live in Western Massachusetts most of the year as I own homes all over but GUESS WHAT KIND OF WOOD I USED TO MAKE MY OWN RE-CURVE BOW?? OH BOY!!! AA
I am the exact opposite, hi-tech stuff to win tournaments. Anyway, I wonder when the BM starts to go after compound bows, crossbows and yes handmade recurve bows? after Hunger Games you know that put the burr under their saddle.
Anyways I have a Samick Sage and a Martin Jag but the re-curve I made has a 100 lbs pull. I took down an almost 400 lbs Razor Back from a tree stand with it. I also took a 10 point stag from 100 yards with my self made re-curve in high wind. AA
