Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Big Jim P]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? For those of you who believe the government grants your rights. For people who believe your rights are inherent, because you're a person, and you have the right to defend yourself as effectively and safely as possible.

if its granted by the government how is it fundamental?

Ummm....all rights are granted by the government or society. There is NO inherent right to anything.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Along those lines sure. I hate reading about a little kid who somehows gets his mits on a gun and shoots his playmate...seems to me in many ways that there are a fair few people who do not take the ownerships of guns seriously.

Of course the real challenge is preventing crims from getting their hands on guns. Something the NRA could take a positive and active part in as well. And this is also where the debate needs to be as well.

I have always said that with any right comes responsibility. Something that gun nuts tend to forget.

Indeed that is how any rational person would look at the subject.

[Big Jim P]

I have always said that with any right comes responsibility. Something that gun nuts tend to forget.

Indeed that is how any rational person would look at the subject.

Well, both sides to this argument have more than their fair share of irrational supporters.

[Veddai Hegemony]

The second Amendment. You know, the whole subject of this thread.

No you see Veddai Hegemony does not recognise that rights are granted via the state. He has this absurd idea that one has 'natural rights'.

I don't recognize the inherent validity of "the state" either, but that's another story entirely. My basic deal is you can do WHATEVER the fuck you want, right up until you start impacting other people, at which point they have the right to come back on you to whatever extent is necessary(whether it's telling you to shut up for talking too much, or removing most of your skull for trying to attack them.)

[The UK in Exile]

No you see Veddai Hegemony does not recognise that rights are granted via the state. He has this absurd idea that one has 'natural rights'.

I don't recognize the inherent validity of "the state" either, but that's another story entirely. My basic deal is you can do WHATEVER the fuck you want, right up until you start impacting other people, at which point they have the right to come back on you to whatever extent is necessary(whether it's telling you to shut up for talking too much, or removing most of your skull for trying to attack them.)

seems legit. good luck with it.

[Veddai Hegemony]

if its granted by the government how is it fundamental?

Ummm....all rights are granted by the government or society. There is NO inherent right to anything.

A right cannot be granted. It doesn't work, the two concepts are contradictory. A right is not optional. It either IS, or IS NOT. I can't have the RIGHT to do THIS HERE, but not THERE. Those are called privileges.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Indeed that is how any rational person would look at the subject.

Well, both sides to this argument have more than their fair share of irrational supporters.

This is very true indeed.

[Big Jim P]

Ummm....all rights are granted by the government or society. There is NO inherent right to anything.

A right cannot be granted. It doesn't work, the two concepts are contradictory. A right is not optional. It either IS, or IS NOT. I can't have the RIGHT to do THIS HERE, but not THERE. Those are called privileges.

What everyone call rights are really privileges that are either granted by the state/society, and protected by force, or taken by force. there is no inherent "right".

[Veddai Hegemony]

Well, both sides to this argument have more than their fair share of irrational supporters.

This is very true indeed.

For once we agree. Shock and awe indeed. Rights are LOADED with responsibilities. I have a right to own a gun. I have a responsibility to not go out and do a Jassyworth with it.

[Veddai Hegemony]

A right cannot be granted. It doesn't work, the two concepts are contradictory. A right is not optional. It either IS, or IS NOT. I can't have the RIGHT to do THIS HERE, but not THERE. Those are called privileges.

What everyone call rights are really privileges that are either granted by the state/society, and protected by force, or taken by force. there is no inherent "right".

Sure there is. All it takes is an attitude of mutual respect and responsibility. Problems occur because people fail in one or both of those requirements.

EDIT: I'm almost tempted to make a thread on this subject and see if I'm a lone nutcase on this or not...

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

This is very true indeed.

For once we agree. Shock and awe indeed. Rights are LOADED with responsibilities. I have a right to own a gun. I have a responsibility to not go out and do a Jassyworth with it.

Jassyworth?

[Veddai Hegemony]

For once we agree. Shock and awe indeed. Rights are LOADED with responsibilities. I have a right to own a gun. I have a responsibility to not go out and do a Jassyworth with it.

Jassyworth?

The paranoid if you own a gun you will become a mass murderer poster we've been forced to deal with. I think he's engaging in a little fantasy transference.

[United States of Cascadia]

The NRA can talk all they want about how "guns don't kill people ... people kill people" but at the end of the day if the guns weren't manufactured in the first place, the point would be moot.

Since no court seems willing to put a logical legal interpretation on the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, it should just be outright appealed.

In every tragedy there is a silver lining - and if this Colorado shooting catastrophe brings us any closer to banning recreational ownership of assault rifles and handguns in the US, then maybe something can come of it.

It's just too easy to get a hold of a gun.

I can make dynamite at home if I want. Ban guns and we simply move to another method to kill people. Moot point.

[The UK in Exile]

What everyone call rights are really privileges that are either granted by the state/society, and protected by force, or taken by force. there is no inherent "right".

Sure there is. All it takes is an attitude of mutual respect and responsibility. Problems occur because people fail in one or both of those requirements.

the point is that rights cannot exist outside the framework of society. explain your right to live to a lion, or your right to liberty to a crevasse. rights only exist as a concept between humans because they are the only creatures capable of reciprocating. no two humans will agree on what those rights are or in what circumstance the exercise of your rights conflicts with theirs. therefore all rights stem from the government of whatever society you live in. theres no rights so fundamental or inherrent that they cannot be rewritten.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

[align=][/align]

Jassyworth?

The paranoid if you own a gun you will become a mass murderer poster we've been forced to deal with. I think he's engaging in a little fantasy transference.

Oh my!

[Veddai Hegemony]

[align=][/align]

The paranoid if you own a gun you will become a mass murderer poster we've been forced to deal with. I think he's engaging in a little fantasy transference.

Oh my!

You didn't notice him before? He's so vehement about guns being too much of a temptation I can't help but think that he's afraid that HE would be tempted to act in such a manner.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

[align=][/align]

Oh my!

You didn't notice him before? He's so vehement about guns being too much of a temptation I can't help but think that he's afraid that HE would be tempted to act in such a manner.

Nope. Just been looking though. I can say that I am not in favour.

[Veddai Hegemony]

You didn't notice him before? He's so vehement about guns being too much of a temptation I can't help but think that he's afraid that HE would be tempted to act in such a manner.

Nope. Just been looking though. I can say that I am not in favour.

You see what I mean?

[Eisemark]

Guns in civilian control are a check against the government and a deterrent against foreign invasion. Not to mention many people require guns for defense against animals or to feed their families. Automatic weapons are extremely hard to get and the vetting people have to go through are near vice presidential levels. ID is required to get a gun. Also, in most states gun saftey classses are mandatory before you are allowed near a gun permit. Even then a Sheriff can refuse you one if they so wish. There is also an enviromental component to gun ownersip. Most gun owner associations are staunch conservationists. Without them around, the corporations would start swallowing up more public owned land then they alreay do.

[Wikkiwallana]

What makes guns a fundamental right?

The second Amendment. You know, the whole subject of this thread.

That makes it a legal right. What makes it a fundamental right?

[Wikkiwallana]

Guns in civilian control are a check against the government and a deterrent against foreign invasion.

Not really.

[Gun Manufacturers]

We do not.
Without special permission.
This is federal law.

I understand that, but i think even that should be gone. there is no need to have an AR-15 laying around the house. Keep everything else on the market, but not ARs and SMGs

The AR15 is not an assault rifle, it is a semi-auto rifle that is popular with target shooters (due to its accuracy and low recoil when used with the .223/5.56mm round). It's also modular enough to take advantage of dozens of different cartridges, which opens up the roles it can perform.

[Spreewerke]

I understand that, but i think even that should be gone. there is no need to have an AR-15 laying around the house. Keep everything else on the market, but not ARs and SMGs

The AR15 is not an assault rifle, it is a semi-auto rifle that is popular with target shooters (due to its accuracy and low recoil when used with the .223/5.56mm round). It's also modular enough to take advantage of dozens of different cartridges, which opens up the roles it can perform.

Sucks for you, GM: he didn't mention anything about my small, but slowly growing AK collection. I'm in the clear.

[Greed and Death]

The second Amendment. You know, the whole subject of this thread.

That makes it a legal right. What makes it a fundamental right?

Because without an armed population, all rights from speech to privacy merely become legal rights.

[Chernoslavia]

I understand that, but i think even that should be gone. there is no need to have an AR-15 laying around the house. Keep everything else on the market, but not ARs and SMGs

AR-15s are not assault rifles.

Why is an AR-15 worse than, say, any other semi-auto rifle?

Because its ''scary looking''. Just look at that terrifying black furniture, and that evil looking shoulder-thing-that-goes-up...oh the horror!