Is there a Right to own a gun; Ethics of Gun Ownership

Oh? I had assumed you were an American. McCarthy and the Vietnam War saw off anyone with any guts (in the second case, they live abroad still). so I don't know where you'd come across any 'left'.

 

I could not disagree with that solution more than anything the left would put on the table.

The United States leads the way for people incarcerated in prison. The U.S. has more people in prison than any planet on earth! As a matter of fact, I have pending model legislation that my senator thought good enough to introduce. Because it is good legislation, we don't expect much action since our governor is out after this session and it may take a couple of years to gain traction.

What the bill would do is to make prisoners serve every day of a sentence unless and until they could prove they are rehabilitated. How does that happen?

Suppose that a person is sentenced to eight years. While incarcerated, if that individual got a GED, it would automatically get him out two years early. Already have an education? An inmate teaching a class for one year and 80 percent or more of his class gets a GED, that inmate gets out two years early..



Getting rid of tattoos and body piercings along with taking some seminars on life skills (like drug alcohol abuse courses, how to look for a job, go to the interview, get a house / apartment, understand credit, balance a checkbook, planning a budget, etc.) could net them another year closer to being out the door.

Acquiring some kind of competency in an actual job skill would get a person out one to two years earlier. If the state cannot afford to pay for teachers, inmates with the skills could teach fellow inmates and earn their two years off.

Combine the above with good behavior and an inmate serves two years of that eight year sentence before rejoining society. But, we're not done with him her. Because, you see this antiquated thinking of putting someone behind bars for long stretches and then releasing them does NOTHING to rehabilitate them. They get out of prison with no education, no job skills, no family support system, no money, no references for a potential employer, and the same addictions they had going into prison. You're accomplishing NOTHING. Well, you ARE guaranteeing they will end up back in prison.

Once an inmate earns their early release, they are put into half way houses where they will then find a job, save money for an a apartment / house and in three to six months, they will be expected to be self sufficient. If they do not achieve that goal, they return to prison for another year and take additional life skills seminars and / or job training and IF they successfully complete that, they are reconsidered for a second shot at early freedom.

Those who complete the requisite training and are successful would be returned to society as a full citizen (at the end of their original sentence), not some second class citizen that is denied the Right to keep and bear Arms, vote, adopt children, etc. You can cut the current recidivism rate in half, save TRILLIONS of dollars in taxes, and give people a second chance at a productive life.

Even that, however, will not address the bulk of the issue of firearms being misused and innocent people being killed. I have offered proposals for that as well. You are only offering to respond to the issue after someone has been shot. I could stop most shootings before the first bullet ever left a barrel. No gun control necessary.

BTW, you should make prisons places people REALLY don't want to go to.

Prohibit candy, cake, ice cream, cigarettes, coffee, and sodas. With no hair, no tattoos and nothing to barter with inside prison, watch how many will suddenly want to get an education and go home.

 

I am American. If you believe there are no left leaning people here, then your political position must be so far to the left as to be untenable in the real world. That would explain a lot. I presume that in the event the people who believe like you took over a country that of course you would be part of the leadership, n'est pas?

 

You believe in Genghiz Khan but have some reservations about total massacre, doubtless. There's nice!

 

I responded to Dr. Who and covered a lot of what you allude to.

If you want to PREVENT firearms crimes, you figure out WHO is committing the crimes. Punishment is NOT prevention. Bear that in mind.

Mass shooters are the ones most likely to commit a crime. Who are those people? Well, over 98 percent of ALL mass shooters come from of the following categories:

1) People who are on SSRIs - those are psychotropic drugs used to treat anxiety, depression, etc.

2) People have been under the care / supervision of a psychologist / psychiatrist and are known to exhibit behavior / actions that could result in acts of aggression and / or violence

3) Political jihadists

I won't go deeply into this, but leave you with some clue as to the SSRI issue alone and then ask a couple of rhetorical questions:

http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/big-list-of-drug-induced-killers/

How come we continue to allow the mental and medical health community hand out dangerous drugs as if they were candy?

How come people are not required to undergo one on one and group therapy BEFORE qualifying for a prescription to get SSRIs?

How come people being given SSRIs are not being given these drugs under controlled circumstances?

Why are there not threads about this and as much concern over gun control... IF the objective is to reduce gun violence?

 

You are a very naughty boy ...

 

Please describe what you mean by "reservations about total massacre". And yes, I believe that Genghis Khan existed.

 

After some 680 posts on this, I wanted to get back on point and say something to everybody on this thread:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

I've quoted that part of the Declaration of Independence over 1000 times on this board to no avail. But of that document the very author (Thomas Jefferson) had this to say:

"The Declaration of Independence . . . [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man."

Who should know better what that document is than the man who wrote it? And so America was founded on this presupposition that Rights are bestowed upon you by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) One of the great gun quotes the pro-gun lobby uses is this:

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and
which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin

Though both sides have access to the words of our forefathers and their intent, BOTH sides would deprive you of your Rights on the most specious of arguments. Unalienable Rights are either bestowed upon you by a Creator OR by a government. It's that simple. If a person abuses their Rights and commits a crime, they are executed or imprisoned. But, after that individual has repaid their debt to society, they are to be left in full possession of their Rights.

You cannot, on one hand argue that a person has unalienable Rights, then on the other hand, argue that some classes of people should not have a firearm or that your unalienable Rights are now subject to some kind of permission from a corrupt government operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption. This is simple. It's either / or. If indeed, the government can require licenses, permits and then ban certain firearms, it is NOT a Right to keep and bear Arms. It is a privilege subject to the control of government.

If you don't want majorities deciding your Rights - which they will ultimately take one by one, then you have to wake up. No majority can take your Rights by declaring people to be criminals. Ayn Rand summed this up very succinctly:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers."

My home state has figured out how to legally take over half the firearms away from the public. You see, in the Lautenberg Amendment (which is federal law) it got challenged in the courts. In the case United States v. Emerson, 270 F. 3d 203, 5th Cir. (2001) the Court upheld the law prohibiting people with domestic relations restraining orders from possessing guns.

Now, if you want to get a divorce in the state of Georgia, they require a Mutual Restraining Order to accompany a Petition for Divorce. So, under federal law, if you got divorced in Georgia, you can NEVER own a firearm. Why isn't the law being enforced? Maybe the legal community hasn't thought they needed to invoke it yet. Maybe they're waiting until something so horrific happens that we won't complain when it is applied. We saw this happen when 83 percent of respondents were against National ID and then 9 / 11 happened. Then the majority flipped sides.

My critics on the pro-gun side of the argument honestly think they can limit unalienable Rights and that treating symptoms can reduce crime. It doesn't. Having different classes of citizens is exacerbating a situation we could control with preventative measures. But, at the end of the day, if we are not fully committed to the concept of God given unalienable Rights, these threads will only be for personal amusement, entertainment, and a way to vent about an inevitable situation leading to tyranny and oppression for all.

 

You don't see the disconnect, or you don't see where I'm coming from?

 

Which is irrelevant to the point being made.

I get my money by working for it.

 

I don't think that I agree with you.

 

And I don't think I agree with your not agreeing with my not agreeing.......lol
And I do not think I agree with me not agreeing either,
So there..

 

What do I want a gun for? What does that have to do with gun crime that is overwhelming committed by those that have been banned from legally owning firearms?

 

What do I want one for? Self-defense primarily, sporting and collection purposes secondarily. Putting holes in someone trying to rob your house most definitely solves that problem.

 

Competition, practice for competition, hunting, target shooting for fun, self defense if necessary.

 

It really is quite silly to blame psychiatric medications for mass shootings. It should not be shocking that some people with psychiatric problems that take psychiatric meds have psychiatric issues with guns if they own them. Many of them have psychiatric issues with their TV too.

 

If TVs were mainly owned by GOP voters I'd suspect the anti gun movement would become the anti TV movement

 

Most of them would need to be shown how to operate one. LOL

 

yeah, one has to be brilliant to want to ban things

 

It is no more shocking to blame drugs KNOWN TO HAVE DELUSIONAL THOUGHTS OF SUICIDAL / HOMICIDAL THOUGHTS as drug side effects than it is to blame the inanimate firearm for the actual act.

As stated over and over and over again, you are NOT about saving lives, you are about gun control. It is beyond silly and irresponsible to ignore the connection between SSRIs and mass shooters.

 

I never said ignore it. Sure let’s look at it......and institute gun control. We can do both

 

If you eliminate the problem, why institute gun control? My theory is that if you address the root of problems before they become a problem, you might not have a problem to begin with.

For example:

If states required people to undergo at least three sessions of pre-marital counseling before getting a marriage license, how much potential violence could be averted?

If the counselor put the potential couple on the spot, how many would then even want to get married? For instance, the counselor asked their views on abortion. If one of them lost their job and couldn't find another one, would they be okay with abortion as a way not to incur a family expense? Or, better still, should the husband have full control over the checking account or will they have separate accounts? And if they have separate accounts, what happens when one of them don't have the money to pay the immediate bills and the other one is in the hospital, unable to conduct business?

If people knew the score going in, would they even get married? If they didn't you may have averted a problem that could some day become violent AFTER they are faced with the problems.

For almost any scenario you can create, it can be shown that the situation could have been prevented without an assault on your Right to keep and bear Arms. But, we're too busy tying gun control as a prerequisite to actually DOING something about the root problem.

 

I know; I'm just trying to understand your position.

You say there is a right to self-defense... but not a right to the most effective means with which to actually conduct that defense, correct?

I'm just wondering about the disconnect I perceive between those two positions, and I'm hoping you might be willing to take the time to elaborate further on it.

 

I realize mefloquine is not a psychiatric medication but still interesting.

 

Now you want the right to marriage restricted but god forbid we ever have gun control? That is freaking hilarious!