The debate "Most fellow Americans fail to understand what it truly means to have a right" was started by
April 1, 2018, 6:28 pm.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 5 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Matthew354 posted 24 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 13 arguments to the disagreers part.
Matthew354, Against_eu, bruh352, person0092, Conservative81 and 8 visitors agree.
Nemiroff and 4 visitors disagree.
that sounds horrible, but my gut is telling me you are exaggerating the situation. specifically the intentionally hush hush law passing and instant enforcement on unwitting victims.
I'm not saying your wrong, I would like some examples tho
Listen, I apologize for calling you clueless OK? I'll just think of you as someone who needs to be enlightened.
Let me tell you what's going on here in California specifically. Yes, California has freer gun laws relatively speaking from the rest of the world, but it's not true from the rest of America. California has somewhat reasonable restrictions on driving on the road, but it is a whole different story on California's idea about weapons. The guide to traveling on the road in California is given the run down on what is illegal and illegal on the road, and safe practices, with easy to understand "Drivers' Handbook," not so with firearms or any other weapons that California seek to control.
So how do we Californians know about these laws in place? There are legislatures in California who identify secretly with gun rights groups to covertly pass information to us with those to subscribe to them and be warned ahead of time: NRA, California Pistol and Rifle Association, etc. In consequence, the people who are unlucky enough not to keep up to date with these organizations or these laws have flashbangs from ATF agents after breaking down their doors for having a 30 round magazine, I feel bad for them...
What I learned from gun control, in the likes of California, is not that it strips criminals from having guns, in practice actually makes new criminals who never had a criminal record before.
isnt that what trump is promoting? if they suspect you of being crazy (which is something noone can exactly define, not even doctors) they can take your guns!
I disagree with that. I think that's too far. I think all guns should be registered, and no new crazy guns should be up for sale, but you cant blame people for doing something that was legal when they did it.
unless they had something illegal like a grenade launcher. we need to put sensible limits, not penalties on innocent people.
That's where you are wrong, there are plenty of people taking guns here in California. In fact, many ATF agents broke down into many people's homes (like SWAT teams violently trying to rescue hostages) to take property recently when Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that extended the definition of "assault weapons" early 2017, they were told they can keep it if it was grandfathered before the early 1980's, but they were registered.
You are clueless.
however you feel about their policy, to believe they are passing the law to intentionally create victims is crazy!
they are trying to save lives, even if you believe their method is misguided.
and nobody is trying to ban guns. they just want to do basic registration and background checks. nothing even close to what the czech republic does.
This is my main problem with gun control, politicians never tell any what is legal and what is not. Just passing a new gun law and hoping someone would fall victim to it! That's just evil and corrupt.
molotov cocktails are regulated. they are very illegal. the individual components are legal, but if you put them together you go to jail for a long time.
so if your comparing guns to molotov cocktails, I agree. but I'm not advocating for banning metal and gun powder
They are inanimate objects, of course you can regulate them equally. In fact, I can design an alcoholic bottle designed to kill people called a "Molotov Cocktail." They are very lethal improvised weapons that can kill multiple people as well as tanks, but I won't do it because destroying property and murder is illegal.
I dont think those are not remotely the same.
regulating what people put inside their body that damages it and over decades die from it (od numbers are tiny fraction). is not the same as regulating lethal weapons people use to violently kill others.
There is no background checks on people buying alcoholic beverages, where there is an average of 38,000 deaths per year by alcohol abuse, it makes more sense to start there.
and stopping people from smoking will prevent lots of diseases. that is an admirable goal. that doesn't mean we shouldn't have doctors try to treat the accute problem. you know, the person dying.
we should absolutely work on improving the mental health of people to prevent issues. but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to treat the symptoms. the symptoms are killing 10s of thousands of people.
and no matter how much you work on mental health, there will always be lunatics who will kill people. road rage for example. an otherwise mentally stable person has an accurate episode of anger and kills someone. mental health screening can't prevent that. gun control can.
are you saying you are all unsuspecting victims hopefully outmatched by me in a 1 sided battle? is so, thank you. if not, then your analogy doesn't quite work.
you have every right to shoot an unsuspecting animal from afar with a grenade launcher, that doesn't make it an accomplishment.
this has nothing to do with a position on guns or animal rights, I was actually going to make an exception for fast flying birds, that would actually take skill. but not that land shit. this is why you dont get trophies in video games when you use cheat codes.
10s of thousands of people? No, much lower than that if you stop counting suicides. It isn't any of our business what tool a person uses to commit suicide, our business is why people commit suicides.
I'm not saying it wouldn't take guts to stand up to the gun lobby. but it can, and has been done.
it becomes other people's business because children are being murdered with those weapons. if they weren't being used to kill 10s of thousands of people then no one would care if you wanted to own all the weapons in the world. but they are being used that way. so it becomes an issue for everyone else.
And how is it any of your business that if I use an AR15? Any American can use a 200 round belt or 30 round to hunt an out of control population of parasitic hogs in Texas if they want to, you do not want to go up against a horde of 300 pound aggressive hogs with a bolt action rifle.
Many people have tried making national gun laws, and very, very few have succeeded like NFA. And who is going to pass such laws on a national level with a very big chance of non compliance? A Canadian like you? I'm sorry, but you will get fierce resistance from gun owners like me and the recent law in motion right now (making it legal to conceal carry a firearm in any state) makes that chance horribly slim.
of course lots of people in California have illegal guns. their laws aren't nearly strong enough. and anyone who wants one can just cross into another state and buy one and bring it back. gun laws need to be national to be effective.
if you need a 30 round clip, semi auto weapon to go hunting, you are a terrible hunter. learn to shoot accurately and you won't need AR 15 to bring down a deer. and if "intereference by government" in hunting saves thousands of lives, how is it even a question if that is a good thing?
Calling hunters cowards for using a firearm is like me calling you lazy for debating on the internet instead of going to a debate in your local community college, illogical.
Canada has firearms for hunting with a lot of interference by government, and a lot of criminals in California have illegal firearms from my personal experience. In fact, if America were to somehow pass a national ban on firearms, we would just move on to airguns like the United Kingdom would move on to acid.
firearm hunting is for cowards.
it's like calling golfers atheletes.
If criminals don't have guns either then you no longer need to be armed for self defense. research shows you are more likely to survive if neither you nor your attacker have a gun. plus your gun is statistically far more likely to be used on a family member than an intruder or attacker. so no, arming everyone to keep everyone safe doesn't make any sense.
and you don't a semi auto weapon capable of taking down a crowd of people to go hunting. Canada has gun laws and people still go hunting. we also have very few mass shootings. for example a guy attacked out parliament with a gun a few years back. the only weapon he was able to get was a lever action hunting rifle. do you know how many people died in his attack? 1, not including the shooter. and only because the guy didn't know he was there. in America that guy would have had an AR 15 and there would have been way more casualties.
There are simple and logical justifications that I support it: individual self-defense from the low life criminal and hunting without government interference. Would you criticize the 1st Amendment equally?
How do you mean, "fail to realize, what it means to have a right"? A citizen of any country is very aware of their rights.
"I don't have blind devotion to the Constitution because I use the 200 year old document to criticize the California state government very often, and pretty much every law passed in the United States."
you using the document as your ultimate point is why I claim you treat it like gospel. the reason something is a right is because the document says so and no reason or logic can apparently defeat that. your dispute with other Gov laws has nothing to do with my question. I'm referring only to the us constitution written by the founders. does it require justification or is it the ultimate justification and cannot be questioned?
I don't have blind devotion to the Constitution because I use the 200 year old document to criticize the California state government very often, and pretty much every law passed in the United States. Why? Because I prefer not to have blind devotion to the laws passed by the government (especially in the likes of the California state government) which have been proven many times in history that the government has been too powerful, and the Bill of Rights is basically a starting point where we can criticize the power of the government, on the state, local, and federal level.
I chose to use the Bill of Rights because I learned of the word "democide." What does that mean? It means the genocide of people by the state/government. Democide was a serious epidemic during the 20th century by many totalitarian countries, and the Bill of Rights along with the 2nd Amendment have served us very well as a bulwark from us being a statistic of about 60 million people (this is a quite a low estimate) killed by an overreaching government. Such genocide made by the state, in recent history, is the reason that convinces me that the state is capable of astronomical amounts of deaths than some wacko or psycho crazy people with firearms. Eastern European Countries had it worst more than any of us when it comes to totalitarianism, and the Czech Republic decided it was a good idea to have their own equivalent of the American 2nd Amendment.
We Americans have it spoiled, and for the Czech Republic and other European countries? Totalitarianism and a highly centralized government was recent history.
I dont mean to insult you with that comment. just an observation. you do have reasons, but after our reasons clashes, your ultimate point seems to come down to "it's a right in the constitution, government shouldn't interfere with rights". and although we keep asking why it should be a right, you avoid that question.
I'm guessing it's not that you avoid it, but that you don't see that as a valid question. if that is the case, may I ask why you feel that the decisions of these men are above reevaluation?
in other words, the ultimate decider of what should be is not based on logic and reasoned arguments, but blind devotion to the words of people 200 years in the past?
do you think the founding fathers as infallible gods and their words gospel? because based on your "if transportation was in the constitution I would fight" you judge thinks not based on merit but 100% based on whether or not it's in a specific ancient text.
anyone should run for office because running for office has an strict approval process, you have to pass confirmation by a majority of voters. as opposed to your view on guns where any idiot can go and get a weapon within minutes. no thank you.
I would say your trying to turn America into the wild west, but even in the wild west we had stricter gun laws then today.
The only one who is permanently a criminal is Satan. Lets accept that some ungodly folk actually are governors. Who are you to label them as completely incorrigible by openly declaring them criminals while presenting no evidence they are currently engaging in criminal mayhem?
Another important note: if the Founding Fathers wanted transportation as a right in the Bill of Rights, I would gladly fight/protest the state and federal government requiring it's citizens to have a license before driving in the streets. So what entails a right? A right should not require any licensing or evaluation before exercising, and I prefer less government involvement.
What really bothers me that anyone, including criminals, can run for government office in any state in the United States with no criminal/mental screening passing outrageous and senseless laws. That issue requires screening because there is no constitutional right to run for government office.
Um yes! Did you read what I just said? No state or federal government should regulate guns like driving a car, because there is no constitutional right to drive on the road like the freedom to bear arms. And because people of the United States have right to bear arms, it should be much more loose laws that keep it a right, so I'm fine with how cars are regulated as a privilege which makes it a reasonable regulation. How firearms are regulated now? Absolutely not fine, neither is the regulation on firearms being reasonably regulated.
ok let me see if I have this straight. you accept that cars need to be regulated. but a device designed specifically to kill other human beings shouldn't be? they should be available to any wack job that wants one and they shouldn't need to get screened, trained on how to use it safely, or even register that they own a dedicated killing machine? that makes logical sense to you?
That is why it is up to the individuals to have the personal responsibility to take firearms training in the if the heat of the moment happens to them, there is no way I'm going to blame the few idiots with the gun who didn't take the training that would make them understand to take account in what is beyond the target and doing it in a cool head.
Do I agree that the government should require such training? No, but those who didn't take the training after being tried for the case should be punished, and no law should be passed to punish others for possession of any firearm because of it. If anything, the government should only be required to put campaign poster signs and vouching to take firearms training .
for every gun wielding hero story I can pull a road rage incident involving firearms. some people are heroes, but many are not. why do you think guns are banned in casinos?
as I said before, even the calmest amongst us lose our cool many times throughout our lives. cheating wife, alcohol, bad business deal, gambling, bullying, roadrage, getting fired. most people won't go for the gun, but with 330million people, more then a few might.
then there's the bullets that miss or penetrate thin walls. should you allow fire arm self defense in an apartment building? what about connected houses? heck you might even hit your own family members in another room if your not careful.
the Australian olympian in the wheel chair who shot his girlfriend thinking she was an intruder incident comes to mind.
You misunderstood the 2nd Amendment, because it clearly states the freedom to bear arms as a means for self-defense, not the freedom to kill. Self-Defense != Killing. There are hundreds of thousands of accounts of successful self-defense stories of a person with a gun in the United States that doesn't even involve firing a shot or someone being killed (This is enough to tell me the militia is well regulated today) to avoid a crime from happening in the domestic level, in fact, those responsible gun owners pulled out a gun at the critical time of imminent danger and the people who mean harm just ran away because they got horrified that person who was shooting them or just pointing the gun at them; justifiable homicides and murders are only a very small part of those stats concerning guns.
I think your misunderstanding me. I never said the militia has to be organized by the government. I just said they have to be organized.
make response plans, run drills, some form of coordination and training beyond basic operation and maintenance of the weapon. none of that requires government, but that's a minimum for being considered organized.
also, I see the difference in the wording of the rest of the rights, but do you notice that none of those rights increase the citizens ability to kill others? I would expect such a right to come with extra restrictions. I'm unsure why is even a right. I do not want to be walking around densely packed neighborhoods with a bunch of armed average joes.
Try zooming out of the word "well regulated militia," see other parts of the Bill of Rights, and try omitting the 2nd Amendment for a moment.
Do you see any other Amendment that empowers the government to do anything?
How about the power of the government to the to garrison into a person's home? Nope!
How about the power of the government to put someone to trial for the same crime more than once? Nope!
How about the power of the government to shut down news outlets with inflammatory rhetoric that would harm a politician's reputation? Nope!
How about the power of the federal government cross the rights of states? Nope!
How about the power of the state government to protect citizens from harm like foreign and domestic threats? Yes?
Listen, reading the Bill of Rights makes the last point not make any sense in line with your logic. How can so many of these Amendments limit so much what the government enforces and the laws they pass, while the 2nd Amendment is believed to do the complete opposite and empower the government to have a well regulated militia? I don't know this makes any sense to you.
The Bill of Right is intended to limit what the government can do (passing laws and enforcing them), not empower the government to do anything; so you have been missing the point of the Bill of Rights as well as the 2nd Amendment.
george mason worked against the signing of the constitution, I highly doubt he wrote the second amendment.
and the amendment didn't just say a militia but an organized militia. I disagree that armed strangers is in any way a militia, but it is beyond a doubt not organized.
I didn't dodge your question, because I implied the militia is made up random and armed American people. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." Said by of the Founding Fathers, named George Mason. And what of the criminals? As long as they serve their sentence, they are qualified to be militia if they are willing to be trained and armed themselves if they so choose.
I think the difference is that I see the constitution as a work done by intelligent people, but still people, 200 years ago, in a rapidly changing world. I dont see its words as gospel, but as an excellent starting point that can be improved. I do hold freedom of speech and belief as sacred, but owning guns is nowhere near equal to that.
I am not advocating for a ban, I just disagree it should be anywhere near a right. cars are not a right yet are not banned. they are also very much restricted and all registered. I support the right to own small arms, but mass carry just sounds like a disaster.
if you want to help the suicide rate, then set up better mental health services and social supports. however if someone truly chooses to end their life that is their choice. my concern are the people who are killed by gun violence. I am not trying to restrict guns to prevent suicide that wont work.
you keep saying to treat the cause but what is the cause? mental illness? criminality? bullying? domestic abuse? money? jealousy? we should address them but these are universal issues of humanity. the difference is that in safer places, those humans dont have access to mass murder weaponry. are you really going to say that perfectly sane people dont snap numerous times throughout their lives?
if someone proves they are irresponsible with guns they don't need training, they need to not be armed. as for that ruling, if it's the one I'm thinking of, I agree with the dissenting justices who saw the situation as a militia. I acknowledge that it is the law of the land, but that doesn't dictate my opinion. it's not practical for today's situation, and it doesn't match the wording in the constitution.
Yes I am agreeing with you, but only to a certain extent. Where we differ is that I accept the fact that the *2nd Amendment is about an individual's right* to self-defense (defined by the DC vs Heller Supreme Court Case in 2008) is valid from the day it was amended all the way to the present and supplemented with training, where as you state that the 2nd Amendment is only concerned with the *security of the country with the concern of the individual as an after thought.* The security of the individual can in turn, albeit somewhat insignificant, be the security for the free state if the individual wishes.
Where I stand in the training is that the state or federal government should not require or force the training on the individual before purchasing a firearm, and only then an particularly irresponsible gun owner that has proven to be too dangerous to have a firearm because he or she has been proven in court to be because the person didn't have the personal responsibility to attend the training.
And concerned by the 10s of thousands of deaths of firearms you say? Then address the causes of suicide that make up more than half of the firearm deaths, don't blame the tool for which gun control only treats the symptom instead of the cause. Like I do.
it is the peoples right to be have a militia present, not to all be part off. you dodged the question about how a bunch of strangers with guns who never even meet qualifies as a militia.
your analogy doesn't fit because the right to speech and others dont have the "regulated militia" line in them. they just say flatly all can speak. the gun right specifies a militia... so I'm not sure how your connecting the two.
"Select volunteers" like few and the elite like government, military, and celebrities only? That is antithesis what a right is, it is known as a privilege.
According to this logic, you don't believe absolute strangers who newly arrived to the United States should have 1st Amendment rights like speaking and forming a rally do you? They must go through some police screening and American Loyalty programs before speaking or expressing about dissenting or unpopular ideas.
yeah, a militia is independent of the official military... but it's still organized, and made of select volunteers, not everyone.
it's not a militia if you just arm random strangers.... that's just a bunch of armed strangers. no organization.
you are only agreeing with what I said. to George Washington it was important that civilians own guns so they could fight in the nation's defense because the US did not have a military capable of defending the country by itself. and they wanted it that way to ensure the military wasn't a threat to civilian control of the country.
since both militias and civilian owned small arms are almost completely irrelevant to the national defense in modern warfare, this no longer makes any sense. 10s of thousands of people die every year so that in some hypothetical war at some point in the future, civilians can have a weapon that will be irrelevant to the outcome.
Very important note: the militia that George Washington trained was never supplied with muskets provided either by the state or federal government. What's more? They were privately owned muskets bought by every individual militia man, and never had any criminal/mental evaluation before buying one.
False, the "well regulated militia" has nothing to do with regulating the private ownership of arms. This is about the proper training of civilians to put up a their own disciplined fight, after all, George Washington specifically says that a militia is defined to be "independent of others, particularly military, supplies." This quote from Washington strongly tells me that the National Guard, funded by the state government, do not fit this definition for well regulated militia. No military personnel who uses a firearm is actually in private ownership of a firearm to be used on combat, it is government property.
I think your confusing "don't understand what it means to have a right" with "dont think that one should be a right".
I absolutely agree with you that freedom of speech, religion, due process, the press should not be interfered with by the government, but the right for every average Joe to walk around with a weapon... not so much. I would actually prefer they didn't. like a line from a movie I liked, "people are smart, but masses are stupid".
also the second amendment states the right of the people to be armed in an organized militia.... not every random undiciplined person.
It means to exercise a practice that should not be interfered by the government, particularly constitutional rights that people wrongly believe the government gives. For example, it is absolutely wrong to force people to have a license/permit to open or conceal carry a firearm in public, because that is a right being demotion to a privilege.
what do you think it means to have a right? how does your understanding of this differ from most Americans?