The segment of the population that tends toward absolutism on the Second Amendment is actually quite small, but is extremely intense. Whereas those who take a more nuanced view of gun rights tend to be less intense and more ambivalent. It is not generally their top priority and so the country tends, on the whole, to give both culturally and legally a wide scope to gun rights.However, it is not at all clear that the culture, as it devolves into a populist tone and an abstract libertarianism with an emphasis on individualism at the expense of community standards, that the society can handle responsibly the rights it has accrued to itself. Including gun rights.Burke said "men have no right to that which is not reasonable," and rights must be defined through the prism of the context in which they are exercised. What the nation has in the Second Amendment is a right that presupposes an ethic of community standards that are at this moment in the nation's life, at best, fraying. In short, that presupposition needs to be re-examined and, pace Hamilton, the right needs to be regulated in the light of such a re-examination.In short, what matters is not the method, but the ethical and social context in which rights are defined and exercised. Americans are, in this time in history, inclined to view freedom as an end in itself and not a means to an end and thus rights are defined in absolutist terms. Here is where the problem begins.
well... a gun isn't a tool you walk out with to use every day... it's a JUST IN CASE if you're carrying it
@LEADFOOTboi Not sure of the distinction you are making. After all, you don't use a screw driver every day - you just keep one in the house in case you need it. That does not make it any less a tool in that sense.However, I don't believe that it alters the substance of my argument.
you seem to want to say 'you are not going to need it ever, so you shouldn't carry it and anyone who does is paranoid'...
@LEADFOOTboi Not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that any right is conditional. That while you may regard it as a tool it is something more and has to be treated as such.Hence why we have a Second Amendment for guns but not screwdrivers. It then being understood that any right is subject to limitation rooted in context and jusxtaposed to other rights.You have a right to own a gun, but that right is not unconditional. Moreover, if there is a perceived need to possess a firearm, that suggests that there are problems that are larger and need to be addressed prior to that need - and that it might be wiser to address. By the time you are resorting to a gun it is likely that more deeply rooted problems have been neglected.
@nightdrot the 2nd amendment is unconditional hence the phrase in the amendment "shall not be infringed" the 2and amendment is there to protect or God given right to own guns for protection. The 2nd amendment is there to project citizens freon a tyrannical government who is out of control. Hence the current illegal stay at home orders. There are more people killed by hammers than guns each year
@masonderek6994 Except that it is not unconditional. With guns you must have a permit and meet certain qualifications. You cannot own a tank or an machine gun or a flame thrower.Just as the right to free speech is limited - you cannot incite violence, you cannot violate copyright and libel and slander laws. Just as the right to religion is limited - you cannot practice human sacrifice even if your religion requires it.The language of the Bill of Rights is unconditional but in practice the Supreme Court rulings and historic usages have established limits on even constitutional rights. The issue being not that they cannot be limited, but rather that such limitations must be prudential and the burden of proof is on the government to show why there should be such limits and that they are equally applied.
But that's not the way the constitution was intended. It was intended to be unconditional. Those changes are by corrupt government officials looking to violate our constitutional rights and freedoms. Few speech is free speech and is only limited by government tyranny. You can practice human sacrifice. Government may disagree hence the separation of church and state. Limitations are put by corrupt politicians who can't get what they want the legal way so they pervert the constitution in order to make it the way they need it for a certain special interest group. There entire purpose odd the constitution and bill of rights is to guarantee our freedoms and limit government control in our lives
@masonderek6994 Well, that may be, though begging the question of what then Hamilton and Jefferson and the Federalists and anti-Federalists and Marbury and Madison were all fighting about.Not for nothing did Madison write that debate in Congress "would revise and enlarge the public views and give direction to the willfulness of the people." The problem being, as Burke put it, that abstract rights do exist but "their abstract perfection is their practical defect."Bottom line, your's is a libertarianism that has not been the dominant view of the Constitution certainly in practice and not really in theory. In that I would cite to you the Federalist Papers from which I briefly quoted above.
Mine is a Republican conservative view not libertarian at all. Don't care about the federalist papers ad they're not the constitution which is the supreme law of the land as written and not the changes that addre trying to contort the constitution
@masonderek6994 American conservatism is in the classical liberal tradition, from which libertarianism is derived.To this I add, for your convenience in terms of setting definitions my answers to these two questions:1) Republican or Democrat: Which one are you? ↗2) Are you a conservative or a liberal? ↗Even American conservatism, suffice to say, is not absolutist about rights. See also abortion. See also gay marriage.
Abortion is murder plain and simple and murder is illegal. Gay marriage is a farce and against human nature. Conservative and liberal are on the opposite sides of the spectrum. Conservatism is completely opposite or liberalism tradition. You can disagree but you're not going to change my view no Matter how hard you keep trying. I know the difference. Conservatives addre Notre level headed and liberals are usually bat shit insane
@masonderek6994 Do not disagree with you, but if freedom is an end in itself rather than a means to an end - as the libertarians in effect argue - then you have no consistent legal or moral standard by which to argue against them.At any rate, you started by arguing an absolutist position on rights and are now bringing in other factors not defined in the Constitution. As to the definition of conservatism and liberalism, please re-read my answer to the second question. I also strongly suggest a course in political philosophy. This is more complicated then you seem to understand. As human society is complex, so is the pedigree of the political philosophies that have helped to shape it.
Whatever you can keep spouting your bullshit and it won't make any difference or change my mind. I re read your 2nd question and still disagree and that will never change. 99% of political philosophies are complete utter bullshit. Or politicians aren't competent. They are there to make a huge paycheck without being held accountable. 75% don't give a shit about actual Americans. Human society is actually Pretty simple and addre complicated by politics and the need ti punish people with unneeded laws and fines
@masonderek6994 Well, that ends it. You have crossed the line from a discussion to vulgar language, epithets and insults. That will get us nowhere. The last refuge of the intellectual vacuous argument, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde.
Savage answer. 👍
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy I'm a middle-class guy who spent a lot of time in lower-class, dangerous areas. I've seen and heard things that would never make it onto COPS. I'm under no illusions of how things can go. And in my town, due to migration of criminals out to the far suburbs, this kind of crime happens all around me. My friends a couple miles down the road had their next-door neighbors put in the hospital during a 2am home invasion. There are 40 or 50 armed home invasions a year in my town, many associated with grow houses (weed).This kind of crime is spreading into areas where it didn't use to exist. People can't be naive about that.
Interesting, the only thing you said that was factually accurate in that entire repetitive opinion is that NY doesn't allow people to take up arms and protect themselves.
@Rangers Everything I said was "factually accurate" and half of this was my opinion, personal feelings on what I want to do with my life. You can do whatever you want with YOUR life. Making stupid, dismissive comments isn't changing anything sweetheart.
Do your research from non partisan sources if you want to be taken seriously on the matter
@Rangers You do know what the CDC is, right?
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
So the 500,000-3,000,000 lives saved every year in the US through the defensive use of firearms compared to just 2,000 homicides with self defense instances removed and they do no good? You literally value the safety of criminals over civilians likely because you're a criminal yourself and in that case, it's a good thing that you don't feel safe robbing people.
@Rangers I have no criminal record and have never stolen anything more valuable than an ink pen, and I return those when I realize I did it.
I don't believe anything that comes out of the mouth of someone anti self defense and pro criminal. Only an elitist corrupt politician or a criminal has those views, you're too stupid to be a politician because you state your agenda so openly so that narrows it down.
You just admitted that you value the safety of criminals over civilians, that's why nothing that comes out of your mouth should be taken seriously, especially when nothing you said holds up against facts.
@Rangers I didn't include any of this saying "Facts show" and while you disagree, this is my opinion, that is the point of this website, to find different opinions. I don't believe in the safety of criminals over civilians, but I disagree with the idea of killing someone.That criminal is someones child, imagine if you had a child and they tried to take something from someones house and the next day you don't have a child anymore because the owner shot them dead.I get your point, but these are two different views and I expect you to respect others opinions on this website like you should, thank you and good bye.
They should've thought about that before they raised their child to be a criminal. I have no sympathy for someone threatening the life of me and my family, they'll have two options, surrender or die and that's how it is, that's how it should be.
There problem I gave in my state is they won't allow me ro purchase an insurance policy to protect myself in case I have no choice but to shoot.
If dogs were killing 30,000 people a yr, we’d have more safety laws for them.
@OddBeMe... are you really gonna make me pull ol reliable out? ok i willl here it is... "guns don't kill people, badguys do"... but dogs do and can attack and kill people because theyre ANIMATED OBJECTS WITH MINDS OF THEIR OWN... guns, they're not
Nukes don’t kill people, so should they legal?
@OddBeMe why, yes they should... machine guns too.. DEREGULATE
Wise for a 14 yr old.
You can, you just need to apply, and then be approved for, a licence. Some stuff, like handguns, semi-automatics etc, are completely banned, but a lot of other stuff is available, once you've been vetted.
I'm aware you can get a shotgun or possibly a hunting rifle, but the amount of effort and cost involved really isn't worth it as I wouldn't have anywhere to use it here.
No, you're right, they want to know where you're planning to use it, and why, and if you can't provide a gun club membership and / or land where you have permission to shoot, I don't think they'd be likely to issue a licence.
Yeah there's no way any of that is applicable to me unfortunately. I'll just need to go abroad to try out guns I guess
In your initial statement you said you'd have it just for going to the range so how is it not applicable to you
There isn't a range where I live and I don't have land available to justify it for hunting. It's really difficult to get a license here
You obviously don’t value your life at all. If someone trys to hurt or kill me. I would be ok with killing them. Wouldn’t blink twice At the idea. Or question it. I care about my life more than some peice of shit. Thats an easy choice for me to make
@AN1995 ok and thats you and your life. I wouldn't be able to live with the guilt of killing someone, be it self defense or not. So im fine with wounding someone but not killing someone. Like i said...
And they're used to kill bad people who deserve to die because they're trying to kill an innocent person far more often than used by bad people to kill innocent people. Disarming civilians only creates soft targets for criminals that you likely support.
@Rangers who are we to decide if someone deserves to die. You have your opinion and i have mine. Im done talking about this
Civilians lives are more important than the lives of criminals, the fact that that's a foreign thought to you shows just what kind of person you are.
@Rangers my thing is, you never know whos innocent or not. Innocent people get shot often. So regardless, i dont support guns. Have a nice day sir
They get shot often because of people like you who would rather protect criminals than innocent civilians
@Rangers you're like an annoying repetitive parrot at this point. Please go away. And if you keep bothering me, i will block you but i rather not do so, so just go please
I'm annoying because I'm pro America and you're not? Go back to your home country, you don't belong or deserve to be here.
@Rangers home country? Its america. Gosh you're annoying racist. Fuck off
@Rangers and you're pro gun dumbass. Not pro america
The math ain’t with you. You’re more likely to accidentally shoot yourself.
You coyldnt be more WRONG... you see i know how to shoot. I know how to hit shit and i know how my guns work abd what your not supposed to do with them... these idiots that sgoot themselves privanly do it with the firstbullet they ever shot. I've been shooting real guns since age 10 when i got a 22 and for years before that with BB guns. And when i was a kid i remeber my dad showing me his guns and how to handle them and Showing me bullets and shit because he said he wanted to take the mystery out of them so i wouldn't find them some day on my own. And think they were toys
You maybe. What about a future kid of yours? Stats don’t lie, partner.
@skeetskeetskeet... this guy seems to be devoid of reality... no matter what any kind of "stats" or "facts" say
Your god damn right about that
Well what id do if i had kids in my house and guns... id do the same thing my dad did... educate them on them... If you have guns in a house with kids i think they should know at least basics of gun handling... and that its not a toy... i mean wouldn't you teach ypur kid not to fuck with kitchen knives... guns are totally safe until someone stupid pucks them up
and we have to teach the kids how to mentally handle the acceptable purposes for guns in society... to make sure we're all good guys here
Every parent of a mass shooter said the same thing. They were “good guys” right up to the point they aimed a rifle at a 5 yr old and pulled the trigger.
Well there's for sure bad apples in every bunch but there's millions and millions of people that dont shoot kids and never would... but here's the problem with your argument... once someone has made up their mind to go commit one of the worst crimes on earth... killing random kids... no gun free zone or lack of guns is going to stop them... they will make a truck bomb and blow up the whole school... or any of the other ways there is to kill lots of people... is it not easier to drive a truck thrpugh a crowd.. also my kid wouldn't be strung out on prozac and other psych meds to make up for my shitty parenting...
If we had laws that restricted spouse abuser, terrorists and people with mental disorders from buying guns, then yeah, we can limit mass shootings.
@OddBeMe we already have those laws... domestic violence is instant nogunsforyou... terrorists are government operated and so are mass shootings...
@LEADFOOTboi We don’t. Some states may have them. But they can just drive a few hours across the border.
@OddBeMe can people really pass a background check in another state without an address?
@LEADFOOTboi No moron, they don’t have universal background checks. I can go to a gun show, an individual or some poedunk gun store and just hand over the cash.
Yes they do have a federal database for checking if your legal to buy a gun... what your thinking of is private party sales
HOT DIGGITY DOG, I'M JUST GONNNA GO OVER THE STATE LINE AND BUY A NUKE
But driving is a privilege not a right. You can't buy a gib without a background check which includes psychiatric issues and criminality. Some states require safety classes until a certain age.
we don't sell guns in supermarkets.
There are plenty of safety regulations. But criminals don't follow laws or regulations.
@masonderek6994 So all laws are meaningless bc of criminals. This argument has been debunked for years. But it takes you right wingers so long to catch up.
@OddBeMe did I say they were meaningless, no I didn't. That argument has only been debunked by liberals. I'm not a right winger more middle of the road. But I believe the constitution is the law of the land. The are hundreds of gun laws on the books, why don't we just start enforcing what's already law instead of always creating more unnecessary laws. You and your left wingers want to get rid of guns which will never happen
@masonderek6994 I’d just like make it a bit harder for terrorists and drug cartels to buy guns legally. Guess I’m a commie prick.
@masonderek6994 But since criminals will break the law, we shouldn’t have laws? That’s what you said about guns.
I said why don't we start enforcing laws currently on the books rather than adding more unneeded laws. I didn't say we shouldn't have laws. Learn how to read. enforce laws we have on the books already invested odd creating more laws that will be equally hard if not impossible to enforce. Laws only affect law abiding gun owners. Criminals don't follow laws anyway so more laws won't actually help in any capacity.For your info terrorists and drug cartels don't buy guns legally anyway so don't know why you're stating that because it's just plain ignorant and uneducated
I don’t know the current laws on the books. But say, requirement for trigger locks, mandatory background checks at gun shows, not allowing terrorists on the watch list obtain guns, no bump stocks... could keep going.
Trigger locks are required when children in home not needed otherwise, gun checks are mandatory at gun shows there is no gun show loophole that's a myth. In fact a background check is required on all legal gun purchases. Criminals don't get guns via legal means. Terrorists obtain guns from the streets and not legal means so try again, bump stocks are now illegal, in fact trump banned them, the mag size limit is bullshit because if there addre multiple assailants you'll have ti ask them to wait so you can reload, I have 10 16 round mags so I'm always prepared. Gun laws only affect legal gun owners and have no effect on criminals or crazy people. Guns are a tool only. People using guns for illegal activities have a heart/ mental issue, so let's deal with that rather than further violate my constitutional right to own and use a gun for protection
@OddBeMe might be a good idea to research the laws before you try to debate them and mention things that are already laws
Barebones argument. By the same logic all guns and instruments of war should be banned.
@sensible27 for civilians yes. The military on the other hand it's their job to use said instruments to defend the country. They are trained to use them properly and effeciently. A Kentucky redneck buys a 12 gauge shotgun at wallmart... what is he gonna do with it? maybe his child will accidently shoot a neighbor you don't know... protecting civilians? that's the police's job who again are trained to use them properly.
You do understand you just can't buy a gun of the hook right? You need to pass a test and know how to operate the perticular firearm before you buy them/it. You are assuming most people are irrational which is a decent analysis but most officials are not really that rational either. Consider the fact that most dictatorships have banned guns and most countries which came under dictatorships didn't have many guns. It's just an insurance policy against govt rule. Additionally the number of injuries by gun accidents is far too low to be even considered a major thing to focus on. Just because you here about school shootings more doesn't mean magnitudes more people don't die from car accidents.
@sensible27 yet the US is the only country with recurring school/mass shootings... you don't hear a lot school shootings in france (GEE I FUCKING WONDER WHY)you won't change your mind so why even bother. you're young if you have 2 connected neurons you'll grow up and realize how stupid you sound.good luck in life kid
You are the one who reverted to insult. I was just making a point, your perception that anyone should change their mind just because you believe something and don't offer any rational explanation as to why others should too is irrational. You have heard about the paris shootout right? And again the numbers are too small for anyone to care that much.
@sensible27 paris shootout were terrorist not french people shooting each other and FYI I WAS THERE, i heard the gunshots and saw people fall on the street lifeless.I offered arguments, you blew them out of proportions (like any pro firearm in the US) with your argument "then how about banning all firearms" (like a good kid throwing a tantrum).Look at the stats : the US has the highest numbers of deaths by guns and firearms in the world. Sure terrorists and criminals will find illegal ways to get guns but hey : a lot harder to get a gun in france compared to a Wallmart in the US right? do and say what you want, i don't care about your debate anymore.again good luck in life kid
For what it's worth the first argument was about taking all instruments of wars from everyone (even militaries), it wasn't a tantrum. But you took a template and ran with it, it says a lot more about your character than it does mine.
Meaning I am not experienced with guns but someone who is that can handle it right should have one.
What’s the crime rate there? Is it that dangerous?
It's pretty bad here, I don't go outside much cuz of it
Ireland or Northern Ireland?
@StephenCF we love guns my love🔫🔫😍
@celin98 #Soulmates 🙌🏻
Why do you think guns are the only fork of self defense
Ok so come at me with a knife and see what happens lol
Sword? Lol Honestly I think you can kill a robber if he's armed in is in your house so I support the right of gun ownership but it must be regulated, licensed, and punishments for abuse must be severe.
@Desire-for-Greatness they already are lol
Swords have been obsolete for centuries, a sword in a home invasion is worthless, you'll need to move out of the year of 1066 and into 2020 where firearms are used.
i just want a sword lmao i wasn't thinking in terms of a robber...
Swords are cool. One day I might buy an Arabic Damascus steel sword if they still make those.
i would have to learn how to use a sword
I can teach you
I'm kidding I have no idea how to use a swordI'm pretty good with hunting rifles though
Says who. 5'10 135 not fat at All
@masonderek6994 Looks like you don't live in america
@TheEagle_000 I live in Washington state. Only been to Mexico a few times while growing up in Arizona.
Fat ass nation
@Hydrogen fast ass nation. Not everyone is fat. Im 5'10" 125
I have a 13.8 BMI where normal it's 18.5-24 so I'm underweight asshole
@masonderek6994 You really don't realize that he is trolling you? Retarded.
Don't care bur hea a fucking douchbag asswipe. Most likely a liberal diplomat
@masonderek6994 Nice bro