Should People Who Do Not Know The Purpose Of A Gun Be Allowed To Own One?

It may seem like a silly question, but it's not. It is really about accountability.

 

The purpose is to kill or injure to the point of incapacitation, either for defense, or to apprehend the other party.

The question is, who should posses this potential power and ability? Do people have the right to protect themselves and their property, or should all the power be in the hands of special people appointed to protect us.

 

Certainly specifically correct, but not generally.

Actually, the question is whether or not people think knowing the purpose of a right, should have anything at all to do with exercising the right.

The first and most general purpose of a gun is for survival. The first of those actions perhaps was hunting for food then defense against intent of aggressors towards ones self or others, of serious harm.

I do not know if you responded to the poll or not. I haven't.

Poll results favor, so far, that knowledge of the purpose of the right has nothing to do with exercise of the right.

The thread is not about special people appointed to protect us.

It's more about peoples cognitive capacity to understand and discuss the purpose of rights.

Thank you for posting.

 

Fifty seven views but only 3 poll responses. Accountablity is important.

Maybe a few have guessed that this thread is a parallel to another series of threads about rights I've started. This thread is to demonstrate that the reason we are loosing the right to free speech maybe that we do not know its purpose. When we refuse to recognize it, agree with it and accept it for use towards its ultimate purpose, we are, in a way, proving we are unworthy of it.

Accordingly, the 2nd amendment could be used as justification for action against us in the current conditions. Or, if we believe there is no purpose for gun ownership except the "manifestation of a right under the flag of freedom", while we are a total failure with the 1st amendment.

In other words, people that do not know the purpose of free speech, make pretense to "live free by the gun" rather than the use of unity upon constitutional principle needed to "be the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" and work for a peaceful and lawful revolution. Basically proving they are not worthy of any of their rights.

 

Isn't the purpose self-evident? What else would a person do with a gun besides shoot it? Stir soup with it? Hit baseballs with it? Stick it up their ass and hop around on it?

 

Some collect them; some admire them; some display them.

Some have a fetish and find pleasure in fondling them.

Some possess them because it allows them to overcome their fears.

Some make money by using them to shoot people.

The "purpose" of a gun depends upon the individual who desires one or feels he must have one.

 

No, they would very likely misuse it dangerously.

 

Yes, in a common sense realm your point is well made. However the intent of the thread is more political and based within constitutional intent with regard to our first amendment right ALSO having an ultimate purpose.

HOWEVER, it's purpose is not so obvious and it's use far more noble than that of a gun. Particularly when democratic, political preservation of our republic is concerned and our capacity for a lawful and peaceful revolution.

 

Yeah, it's a silly question, so the answer is yes.

 

^_- do I understand you right that you're asking if someone who does not know the purpose of the RIGHT to bear arms should be allowed to? of course they should. Denying them would be counterproductive towards that very purpose

 

From a philosophical perspective, it's the final user to give a purpose to an object.
Usually the nature of the object limits the freedom of usage by the final user, anyway I can own guns to collect them, to use them as decorative objects on the walls of my home, to use them to make noise [in Italy there is just a kind of pistol which doesn't use bullets but just makes tremendous noise to make annoying animals run away. It's the "pistola scacciacani" ... literally "dogs shooing pistol"].

I could buy several weapons because of sports purposes [you can see at Olympics ...].

There is no reason to sustain that who buys a weapon automatically will use it to harm someone else ...

 

But the point of the thread is not about the obvious. It is about the issue of the purpose of free speech being more noble than the potential violence of a gun. And that purpose is UNRECOGNIZED. So, in comparison, and in that light, it is not a silly question because it mirrors our dysfunction.

In fact, with that said, your avoidance of that is weird, 3 minutes after I post this:

"HOWEVER, it's purpose is not so obvious and it's use far more noble than that of a gun. Particularly when democratic, political preservation of our republic is concerned and our capacity for a lawful and peaceful revolution."

 

Because like I said, denying people that right because they don't understand the purpose would be counterproductive towards the very purpose. MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Nope, the purpose of a gun is to propel a projectile. I have guns who's main purpose is to put holes into targets fairly close to one another (aka target pistols). I have other guns who's purpose is to kill or injure. I don't feel I have a fundamental right to own target pistols. I do have a fundamental right to own a defensive gun.

All (18 and over) except those who through their actions have proven themselves ineligible should be able to use a gun. Examples of proving themselves ineligible are convicted felons, involuntarily committed mental patients, those who have been dishonorably discharged from the military, and those convicted of domestic violence. Until someone is proven in a court of law to be ineligible to own a gun, they should be allowed to own a gun.

 

You sir live in a country that makes the most beautiful and desired 410 bore shotgun's that the world has ever produced. Lucky you.

 

Beretta or Bertuzzi?

 

Sir, When looking at the crafts beauty I have yet to narrow it down to two nor expect I ever will. When it comes to pleasure and admiration I must take time, a lifetime.

 

Concisely and practically stated within the technical intents of law.

The thread is more philosophically based than that as it views the constitutional purpose.

Some say self defense, others say the right extends to militia and enforcing limits on governments abuse. My point is this prime right has a purpose that is fairly well understood and accepted. It is the 2nd amendment.

We can safely assume the framers well knew priorities. Therefore the purpose of the 1st amendment, specifically free speech and freedom of the press must be as least as well known as the purpose of the 2nd amendment IF we are to be fully constitutionally oriented Americans.

Or, the actual protection of 2nd amendment rights could easily depend on proper use of the first amendment. Of course if people do not know the ultimate purpose of the 1st, that will be difficult or impossible.

So before the discussion is hijacked into firing pins and magazine details, if like to inquire if any posting in my thread can follow what I'm saying? Can you understand, given what I've said in this post, WHY I used this topic to broach a related but different topic?

 

What if knowing and using the 1st amendment properly, within its purpose, was the only real way to protect the 2nd amendment?

So if it takes what appears as a silly question on the surface to get perspective upon enforcement of the 2nd amendment considered, because knowledge of the ultimate purpose of the 1st amendment is almost non existent, it is not a silly question.

It is a silly group of people that refuse accountability to logic, priorities and law; while gripping their guns tightly; and the question only serves to draw them out to hopefully be accountable.

 

I already gave an answer, and you've yet to actually respond to it. MOD EDIT - Off Topic

denying people that right because they don't understand the purpose would be counterproductive towards the very purpose.

 

The two rights have the same ultimate purpose.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

I would have agree with that. However, in this case we can reduce the subject to lawful right. There is an intended purpose.

The intended purposes of both the 1st and 2nd amendment rights are to preserve human life. One direct by self defense or procuring food, the other by enabling unity required to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

We have a situation here where people are refusing to use the 1st right to protect the 2nd thereby potententially compromising all rights.

 

If you ask a 100 people the main question of the thread you will get dozens of answers.

So who is to make the decision for the rest of us?

 

Yes, but only one answer is the ultimate and greater purpose generalized to reflect the purpose of all rights. This is how the discussion upon constitutional intent proceeds.

Somehow Americans seem to think they can skip this part.

 

How can you not know what the purpose of a gun is, but ask for one??