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

So if a community of Quakers believes in never using violence in self defense is that their natural right?

 

If you want to play silly buggers try it with an adolescent. Your brainless president motivated his illegal invasion of Irak by saying the UN warned of "serious consequences" and now you're trying the same silly boy paddy cake. I'm not wasting my time with your silliness but if you hang out in your high school parking lot during fire drill you can find dozens of teenagers willing to play. They'll probably even think you are profound and clever.

 

I don't think you have anything of worth to contribute to the thread.

 

I at least read them, found them to align with my thinking and I found them interesting enough to post them for consumption figuring others might as well, and I figured any opposition to their content might generate discussion, but have found that no one explored them enough to use them for commentary or debate. beyond the title. As for summarizing them, why? People can read. The links are self explanatory. I have quoted and commented from the first one. But, I think what fascinates me, is that those among the anti-gun clack make it obvious few read them... I expected a particular fact would have emerged for debate from the the GCA side; it hasn’t ...I am still curious if it will.
Regardless, there is enough found in the links that can be used to refute much of the GCA narrative on ethical grounds and the arguements provided address gun ownership as a right, define both a means of evaluating the efficacy of gun control laws as well as a threshold for when the right to gun ownership (a fundamental right) can be subsumed to a greater good...a threashold I would argue hasn’t been met, with any weapons other than those of mass destruction. Interestingly, those arguements have been made continually by those advocating for gun rights posting here and the links provide a foundation for integrating and assessing their arguements... and they demonstrate why gun rights advocates have and will continue overcome any arguements advanced on the Left... they argue from principle not emotion as the GCA does. The Left, in my opinion will never win on this issue without destroying the principles and gurantees of the Constitution that we follow (obvious from the frequent attacks on it and suggestions itviscout dated and even suggestions that the SCOTUS should be able to legislate from the bench rather than go through the prescribed process for amending it). Those of us that of us have sworn and oath to protect the Constitution are not likely to allow that to happen without a fight.
I find it difficult to fathom how any rational person, reading those links could fashion an arguement to refute the content, but I am open to hearing one. Go for it.

 

Yes, it is.
There are other Religions that will not kill to defend themselves, Jehovah's Witnesses are another group.
Religious and Cultural beliefs sometimes override Natural Rights.

 

Just what you said about using cruelty in training Service Dogs says enough to me about your character.
By the way, to me, cruelty is not a swat with a paper tube on the snout or a poke.
It is what you said about a blind man grabbing his dog by the tail and swinging it around, an act of violence that might end it's life.

You do not know me, and that is fine, I have spent my entire life in the service of others.
I have lived a fine life in that regards, yet you disparage me.
As a Law Enforcement Officer and other services.

So very strange the way you act.

 

I don't see self defense as violent. It is defending ones self from violence.

 

Not in any civilized Country, here in the U.S. the A.S.P.C.A. or in the U.K. the R.S.P.C.A.
"American or Royal Society 'for the' Prevention 'of' Cruelty 'to' Animals"
Cruelty is any acts and or actions that causes pain or harm to an animal, to include lack of care, rough handling, abuse, or lack of shelter or nutritional requirements.

 

That's all you need to know then.

You seem awfully fragile & whinny. Typically, you use titles and "you take it from there" insinuations that you think make you worthy of respect, yet you talk and act like a 'nobody' with a gun. You remind me of David Berkowitz with whom I had the strange (and limited) pleasure of corresponding with. He also felt the world was against him and that he deserved more from his fellow man. He was probably right, but then he bought a gun to correct the problem. The rest is history. You boast of being someone of worth but 2 + 1 does not equal 4, my friend, and you are contributing neither ample nor convincing "talk" to match "the walk".

I am judging you by your own actions.

 

You should always give an executive summary of anything you cite and post.

Otherwise you are just shifting the burden -- a fallacy.

 

While I agree, this right of self defense with some call a "natural right" after John Locke is not a legal right in 191 of the 194 Nations of the Earth.

It's not even a legal right in many US states either. In those states you must allow yourself to become victimized.

 

Pray tell what exactly of worth has been contributed by yourself in this discussion?

 

Citation of such is necessary.

 

If anyone e can see that this was a joke "look around the place" then you should take a second look, for Petes sake.

 

Do you have any data to support this "most guns are crutches to prop up weak characters" claim or are you simply blowing smoke?

 

Another worthless comment that has nothing to do with the subject.
You seem more interested in what I think than the question of the ownership of guns.

 

Again that is your belief. And you are entitled to it

 

Okay, I'm genuinely befuddled by your combative reaction here. I'm trying to have an honest (and respectful) conversation with you; it is not my intention to be in any way insulting or derogatory to you.

Clearly you have a deeply visceral and emotional response to the very idea of people having any need to think about self-defense. Why is that? I ask because I'm genuinely curious; not to disparage your viewpoint.

 

Interesting that you cite Jesus, since there are passages in the Bible that speak of the merits of defense against unprovoked attack... and Jesus himself bade his disciples to have defensive weapons.

Yes, there are those belief structures that believe that violence of any kind, even in defense of themselves, is wrong. I certainly don't agree with them, but I do believe they have the right to make their own choices, as individuals. All I ask is the right to not be forced to comply with a belief I do not share.

 

My opinion only: nations don't "grant" rights. Rights are intrinsic. Yes, a government has the monopoly of force necessary to strip their people of their rights as a matter of national policy, but this does not make it ethical.

One of the reasons why we have a right to bear arms in this nation is because the Founders believed that government stripping people of what they perceived to be a natural right of self-defense was morally and ethically wrong, and they chose to codify the right to bear arms into the Constitution; one more reason why the United States was unlike any other nation on Earth.

The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

 

Everyone has a right to decide, for themselves, how they choose to live their lives. If a person makes a conscious personal choice to not defend themselves from attack, that is their choice. But other people have a right to make a different choice....

 

I agree completely. This is why I believe rights are not universal. We all decide what is right and if enough of us get together we get the government to enforce that right.

 

I don't agree with that. The rights ARE universal; though people can make the personal choice not to exercise them. There is no right to demand that others have their rights infringed.

To say that "if enough of us get together we get the government to enforce that right" only succeeds in reminding me about Franklin's quote about "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."

This is why we need to adhere to the Constitution and its clearly delineated rights. To allow government to "interpret" the Constitution is to allow the government to "ignore" the Constitution.

 

Again this is opinion that rights are universal. I still can find the list of these rights anywhere

 

That is a laugh,
A nobody with a gun....
As a Constable / Retired Police Officer,
I helped many, and put a considerable amount of Evil hurtful people in Prison where they belong.
Evil people that would stick at nothing in harming others.


You have proved to be an Evil man, most likely a serial killer like your idol, David Berkowitz aka Son of Sam, that killed Stacy Moskowitz and her Teen boyfreind one summer night not far from my home in Brooklyn.

I do not feel the World is against me, I have plenty of freinds, I just know and have seen as a Police Agent, there are enough bad people with hatred of others, pure Psychopaths, that start off hurting wee animals, then graduate to people.

Just as very violent people love hurting others weaker than themselves, part of the profile.

You have proved what you are.



"I am judging you by your own actions."

Really ?

You advocate cruelty to animals, admitted admiration of a serial killer, and you put my good actions in a
poor light ???

I have a huge assortment of commendations and medals for valor and saving lives, from Fire Rescue / E.M.S. and other services,

How many do you have ?

Oh, and just so you know,
Berkowitz found Religion and now preaches against his former Evil ways and truth is, he was also suffering from various treatable mental illnesses.