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