Gun Plan

[Antonio the Sixth]

The workers need to prepare for TEH REVOLUTION, you see, Scott.

Even when I wasn't a socialist I supported gun rights, largely because I don't think that state monopolies on firepower are pre recs for good behavior on the part of the state. (And if the experience in the USSR, PRC, et al. are any indication, I'd say those are safe bets)

Baseless generalization followed by a lousy parallel to some random authoritarian regime... Dear God, do you realize you're sounding like a Paultard? Just replace "state monopolies on firepower" with "socialized medicine" or some other catchphrase.

Attacking the arguer rather than the actual argument?

Quite the contrary. I expressed my utter disappointment because I think you are worth better than posts like that.

[Beet]

I never said anything about where rights come from (or if I did I phrased my thoughts incorrectly). I completely agree that rights do not come from force. All I'm saying is that force is (unfortunately) sometimes necessary for the defense of rights, and it is thus immoral for the State to restrict the ability of the People to adequately defend themselves.

I think we're talking past each other. I am saying the whole concept of "force is necessary to defend one's rights" is based on a misconception of the idea of what a right is. I agree that force is sometimes necessary to defend oneself against the violation of one's rights, but I also argue that a right is meaningless if it can only be defended by force. The whole point of a right is that you expect to have it respected without having to use force to exercise it.

Further, there is a difference between the right to self defense, which I obviously concede, and the right to own any weapon simply because it could hypothetically be used in self defense, which I obviously oppose.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All rights are arbitrarily defined. Saying that a only negative rights exist, or that rights are defined by and only by the absence of aggressive force, is itself an arbitrary statement. The concept of rights are a social construction that were invented by people and are conceived differently by different people.

My argument does not rely on what any specific thing you consider to be a right, only what makes a 'right' different from a person simply imposing their will. A 'right' is something that you can expected to have respected as a matter of society. The 'right' to use defensive force is not in dispute, but it adds nothing to the quality of life over what exists in a state of anarchy, and is not therefore related to the concept of 'rights' in a modern sense.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The existence of the right to self-defense prevents its own use, at least to a certain degree. People are deterred from attacking others because they know that they will be attacked in return. Obviously this doesn't always work, in fact it often doesn't, but it still decreases the number of conflicts in society. In fact, that seems like a good example of a social norm that prevents violence, wouldn't you say?

Yes, but it's trivial. That's my point. Anyone can defend themselves, and as I've repeatedly said you have a right to; but so what? Such as it has always been for thousands of years. Modern (classically) liberal societies involve more than that.
[/quote]Well, you originally said that a right which is guaranteed by the threat of force is no right at all. Philosophically and ethically, I agree with you. What I'm saying is that, in reality, the threat of reactive force is all that prevents many from neglecting and ignoring that philosophical and ethical truth. Is not the prevention of such neglect the justification for the existence of the State in the first place?
[/quote]

Oops, I didnt see this...

You say you agree with me but your words reveal you do not understand what I am trying to say. I would rather you not agree and understand than not understand and agree. Where we both really agree is your last rhetorical question. I believe this is what Mafison was referring to when he wrote, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Well men are not angels, and so government is necessary.

But the founders understood that the police powers of government, because they are an exercise of force (as with when when private individuals take the police power into their own hands) are an exception to freedom, not a manifestation of it. And further, the exercise of force, justified or not, can never by itself create freedom. It was not winning the Revolutionary War that made America a nation of freedom, or one of rights. After all, many Latin American nations also won wars of independence only to fall into dictatorship. It was the writing of the Constitution, but even moreso the respect for and living in accordance to the Constitution, to the extent that was done, that defines American freedom. No matter who was holding the guns.

 You seem to think this is all a nice philosophical debate but there are real criminals out there blah blah blah, but this is a very realistic point, because as long as guns are associated with freedom it will be hard to enact laws that objectively curtail crime in this country. But that association is perverse because a gun is a weapon of coercion, the opposite of freedom. A gun, by itself has zero to do with creating freedom.

[dead0man]

A gun is a tool, a dangerous tool and like all dangerous tools, one should be licensed to operate it.  Which is why I'm in favor of universal background checks.  When a person uses a dangerous tool in a threatening or violent way, they should be punished, harshly.  People not licensed to use the tool and still use the tool should also be punished, again, harshly.  People who are licensed to use the tool who buy the tool and then give it to an unlicensed person should also be punished harshly (straw purchases, the gun control fetishists still never talk about this).  All tools (dangerous or not) that have valuable uses should be legal to own in a free country.  Limits?  Sure, the current limits we have against automatic weapons (legal, but difficult and VERY expensive) and explosives (legal, but only if you have a damn good reason) are fine.  Magazine limits are stupid.  Banning .50cal rifles is stupid (never used in crime).  Banning "shoulder things that go up" is beyond stupid (never used in crime).  Banning scary looking rifles (the AWB) is beyond stupid (never used in crime).


I don't give a sh**t about fighting for my freedom against "the man".  A bunch of civvies with guns aren't going to be able to do much against a dedicated 1st world military (though they can make it costly for that 1st world military, see the last decade as proof).

[enrico maxwell]

no restrictions on the right to bear arms.

[AkSaber]

Personally, I think everyone should have a cannon on their front yard. For self-protection, of course.

Uh, yeah. If you enjoy living in the 19th century I suppose.

However, for the modern consumers, I'm certain you'll find this much more suitable to personal protection.

The swashbuckling, chandelier-swinging pirates can keep their cannons.

[Cassius]

no restrictions on the right to bear arms.

Something tells me you haven't thought this through.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Ban all guns except hunting rifles but retain the ability to shoot all of them (including automatic weapons, bazookas etc) at secure fire ranges.

[RosettaStoned]

Ban all guns, including for the police.

 *Officer Down!*

[courts]

your sig is appropriate