Let me be explicit: an “unrestricted right to gun ownership” is not a right. In fact, any “unrestricted right” is not a right. For rights to be genuine, for rights to be effective, for rights to be humane, for rights to be rights, they must be placed into social and political contexts — and that means regulation.Even Justice Scalia, who is no friend to gun control, said in the Heller decision that reasonable restrictions are acceptable. This makes the Second Amendment argument about non-infringement meaningless.
This view of rights emphasizes that they are one of the most important ways that we as a society have sought to honor and protect human dignity — in fact, the protection of human dignity is precisely what rights are for. A high view of dignity will pair rights with responsibilities, individual freedoms with the obligation to ensure that freedoms of others will be respected. If we believe that human dignity requires the right to bear arms, that same foundation of human dignity requires regulations to ensure that this right is appropriately related to all the other rights and responsibilities we bear. Our debate should not be whether regulation, but only which regulation.
What we're left with is a discussion about how much restriction is acceptable. Even my ideas about proper gun control, which have never come close to being implemented even in the most restrictive places, would allow for the preservation of the spirit of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The difference would be that gun owners would be more qualified and more responsible.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
ReplyDeleteand what are the qualifications to vote? or are some rights more important than others?
The problem is, neither his proposed solutions nor the ones you have suggested in your past postings meet the criteria of effectiveness vs infringement.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, as presented, they would have a huge impact on lawful citizens and very little impact on the targeted problem.
And in some cases, the unintended consequences would only increase some of the social issues you are trying to tackle.
"In other words, as presented, they would have a huge impact on lawful citizens and very little impact on the targeted problem."
DeleteI've shown it to be exactly the opposite, minor impact on lawful and responsible people and major impact on gun violence.
How can you be so thickheaded? Every proposal that you've made is obviously a huge imposition on lawful gun owners and would have no effect on criminals.
Delete"I've shown it to be exactly the opposite, minor impact on lawful and responsible people and major impact on gun violence."
DeleteYou've done nothing of the sort. You presented a short list here:
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/09/what-do-we-mean-by-proper-gun-control.html
Which was quickly dissected to shown to contain onerous limitations on lawful people and have not demonstrated any significant impact on gun violence.
Can we agree on this? When you and I look at the same thing we see different things. That doesn't mean one of us is lying, it just means we see things differently.
DeleteBut, if you accept that, how do we determine which one of us is wrong?
I think that you're lying about your true goals, but you may just be confused. How do we determine who's correct about guns in our society? Facts, logic, and values.
DeletePlease Greg, don't insult me and don't insult yourself. You've read my stuff enough to see that I would fucking say it if it were my true goal.
DeleteYes, we can agree that we see things differently. The purpose of discussion is two fold (as I tried to explain here: http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-gun-in-home-actually-makes-you-less.html).
DeleteOne is use facts and logic to help clear up the 'vision' of the other side. I.E. trying to win - perhaps not the whole discussion - but at least certain facets.
But the other purpose is to try to boil a topic down to the lowest points of contention to better understand both the other side of the argument and the larger issue as a whole.
So it is not always about agreeing who is right or wrong but about growing in your understand of an issue and those on the other side of the issue.
I don't know what you mean, Mikeb, about insulting myself. I support my positions in the manner that I described above. I also object to your inability to address key points in a comment, you willingness to make up things without evidence, and your continued desire to take away my rights.
DeleteGreg I wouldn't want to take away your rights. Even if all my ideas were accepted as law, your rights would remain intact, as long as you qualified.
DeleteFL, I like the way you described our discussion and I think it's happening just like you said.
Rights that I have to qualify for aren't rights. They're privileges. That's how you see gun ownership.
Delete"FL, I like the way you described our discussion and I think it's happening just like you said."
DeleteI wish you would let it happen more freely. But you seem to resist most of our efforts to drill down to a certain point. Yet when I try to point those occasions out to you, you accuse me of spending too much time criticizing your writing and not enough on the issue.
So I am afraid I don't know how to proceed.
I love the idea of responsible, capable gun owners. I do everything in my power to move as many gun owners in that direction as possible. Nothing stops anyone else from doing the same.
ReplyDeleteWhat people have to say about rights makes no difference about their existence. The right is prior to your opinion about it. We're born with rights.
ReplyDeleteBut let's speculate here about how this author would squawk if we proposed restrictions on the First Amendment. Please don't tell me about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. The only restrictions on free speech that we have are against inciting violence and telling obvious lies about others.
The hypocrisy is thick with this fellow. He promulgates a poor understanding of rights, but his notion would improve suddenly if the rights that he values were attacked.
Let me give you a situation: I don't care about American football. If bonds for a new stadium came up for a vote, I'd vote against them. I find the traffic snarls around here when the Razorbacks are playing to be bloody annoying. I'm not saying that football should be banned, but I wouldn't weep if the sport disappeared. When I hear calls for rules for testing players for steroid use, I have an opinion, but I really don't care. I do think that athletic programs in colleges are damaging to the educational duty of the institution. I see America's obsession with sports as damaging to inner city youth in that it creates a false idea of how to succeed.
To the author of the article, gun rights are like football to me. And yet, I'm not proposing any bans or "restrictions," while he is.
We have to be extremely careful when talking about restrictions on rights. Any discussion must be in the context of the three main aspects of our society: we are free to do whatever we want as long it doesn't hurt someone else, we collaborate together for mutual benefit, and some rights are superior to others. (Life rights are superior to liberty rights and liberty rights are superior to property rights.)
ReplyDeleteIf there is ever a question or conflict, a tiny bit of common sense and common decency is all it takes to resolve it. Consider for example my free speech right to demonstrate outside of a campaign office. If I demonstrate in the middle of the road, I interfere with everyone else's ability to travel on a public highway. Instead, I simply demonstrate on the sidewalk for everyone's mutual benefit. I get to demonstrate effectively and they get to travel unimpeded.
The 2nd Amendment is the same as all the other rights: a citizen has the right to own, possess, and use a firearm as long as they are not trying to harm another citizen and they conduct their activity for everyone's mutual benefit.
The problem is that gun control restricts citizen ownership, possession, and use of firearms when citizens are not trying to harm other citizens ... and even when citizens conduct activities for everyone's mutual benefit. Such restrictions are neither reasonable nor consistent with common law, our nation's founding (including the U.S. Constitution), nor the basic principles of liberty and civic duty.
"The problem is that gun control restricts citizen ownership, possession, and use of firearms when citizens are not trying to harm other citizens .."
DeleteWrong. Gun control does no such thing.
So licensing owners, requiring the approval of a tribunal to own a gun, having to show need that the tribunal will recognize to carry a gun, restrictions on the number of guns, restrictions on the type of ammunition allowed, getting the approval of a doctor and a shrink, and on and on--all things that you've proposed--are not harm to good citizens?
DeletePlease identify the substances that you ingest to make you this delusional.
No one has argued that there exists no right to "keep and bear" arms, so long as such arms are possessed and used collectively in the context of the armed forces, a national, international,or local police force or a private organization acting on the behalf or with the approval of the former. The argument should not solely consist on what restrictions society should place on the "right" to use of small arms and non-professional destructive devices, but should instead focus on which elements of society have a right on which to place restrictions upon. If such a right to "lawfully" obtain and possess weapons applies to persons or entities other than state actors or persons or organisations engaged in an occupation which manifestly requires the use of arms, where does such a right (that is to the possession and use of small arms by civilians) originate from? Who or what entity has endowed you (and ALL of us for that matter), a mere person with a right, which you claim is so fundamental that any regulations upon such right must be subject to strict scrutiny?
DeleteIf such right to arms does exist, (as you claim, but provide no evidence to describe the need for such a right or more importantly, who has endowed you with this "right", besides a group of five elderly men) in the context of the civilian world, the very concept of individual liberty demands that it be strictly regulated, for the purposes of safeguarding the right to life (the most important right) of another? Stated more simply, if civilians have a right to "keep and bear" small arms, they by exercising such a right as a society jeopardize the human right(s) to life, liberty and property, as is demonstrated by shootings, armed gangs, and muggings?
That's what I meant to say.
DeleteHere are some of E.N.'s words:
Delete"The argument should not solely consist on what restrictions society should place on the 'right'"
"which elements of society have a right"
"If such a right ... applies to persons or entities other than state actors"
"Who or what entity has endowed you ... a mere person[emphasis mine] with a right"
"If such right ... does exist ... the very concept of individual liberty demands that it be strictly regulated"
E.N.'s caste/elitist mindset is not compatible with rights or liberty. His/her idea of rights are not rights at all. They are privileges that the state or some other elite group controls (regulates) at their whim.
E.N.'s comment of strictly regulating individual liberty is bogus. In a nutshell, Liberty is collaborating with other citizens for mutual benefit and the freedom for ANY citizen to do anything, go anywhere, own anything, and possess anything as long as they didn't infringe upon another citizen's rights. It is quite simple and beautiful and yet impossible to regulate.
As for needing rights, rights are not about need. Rights are about dignity, human value, and human spirit! You don't need the right to type in this blog or to hold up a sign in front of a government building. You don't need to have a car or bicycle. You don't need to walk in a park or shop at a certain store. You don't need to keep your home private from government intrusion. So why not infringe those rights? Because infringing those rights devalues the people who exercise those rights. In fact infringing those rights is an outright attack on the souls (if not the bodies as well) of those people. And the whole concept of need goes back to elitism. Who determines if a person stated a sufficient "need" to exercise a right? The state or other elite group again.
And E.N.'s conclusion is wrong. I am a citizen and I carry a loaded handgun in public every day. The simple fact that I possess an object (handgun) does not infringe anyone's rights. And my activities while I am out in public does not infringe anyone's rights: everyone around me is free to go anywhere, possess any object, do anything, and engage in consensual business with me for our mutual benefit. Finally your assertion that armed citizens are jeopardizing society is laughable. Citizens do not shoot or mug other citizens. That would be criminals.
Ok, what is this guy complaining about? There is no “unrestricted right”. There hasn’t been for almost 80 years. The Scailia quote was specifically referring to long standing regulations that the Heller decision is not overturning (more importantly, not addressing). So what was he talking about if guns are unrestricted? You guys have restrictions- you just want more- but you pretend the restrictions that are there don’t exist. This article is a play on the lie that guns are unregulated in this country. That is a big mound of baloney that was consumed by a bull, then ran through his digestive track, and finally excreted into a steaming pile in a field.
ReplyDeleteNo one has argued that there exists no right to "keep and bear" arms, so long as such arms are possessed and used collectively in the context of the armed forces, a national, international,or local police force or a private organization acting on the behalf or with the approval of the former. State actors have a reasonable claim of a right to use of weapons as a means to achieve their duties. The argument should not solely consist on what restrictions society should place on the "right" to use of small arms and non-professional destructive devices, but should instead focus on which elements of society have a right on which to place restrictions upon.
ReplyDeleteShort EN quote: “No one is saying the right doesn’t exist, we’re just saying it doesn’t belong to you.”
DeleteWell, that’s comforting.
"State actors have a reasonable claim of a right to use of weapons as a means to achieve their duties."
DeleteAnd I have a reasonable right to use of weapons as a means to achieve my duty to protect my life and my family's lives.
E.N., you believe that individual liberty requires strict regulation. If you fail that badly in logic, what else do we have to talk about?
ReplyDeleteNo. Since you have no reasonable claim to the "liberties" in question, the argument on whether regulations or prohibitions infringe on liberties which only exist as the fantasy of the socio-politically backward.
ReplyDeleteI have two claims to Liberty.
DeleteNature:
Simple observation of nature reveals Natural Law and Natural Rights as John Locke described. For example a black bear will defend its den and food (property rights); a black bear will defend it cubs and life (life and self-defense rights); and a black bear will sharpen its claws, take naps, seek mates, and search for better habitat (liberty rights). Those activities are an integral part of life and nature. The bear will resist any attempts from any creature to interfere with that bear in those activities. Humans are no less entitled to the same.
We can also observe the human condition. Humans suffer physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual injuries when someone infringes their Natural Rights. Anyone who rejects Natural Rights (which includes Liberty) has no regard for human dignity and human suffering.
Common Law, U.S. Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution:
All of these philosophical and legal constructs embody the principles of Natural Law and Natural Rights. More importantly, they are the legal structure for the very existence, purpose, and operation of the United States. Anyone who rejects Liberty rejects the United States ... and wants to toss out the very structure that worked so well for the U.S. over the last 225+ years!
" Anyone who rejects Liberty ... wants to toss out the very structure that worked so well for the U.S. over the last 225+ years!"
DeleteAnd therein lies the key. Liberty works well for all the citizens. But it hinders the elite and their minions who want to exploit and dominate the citizens.
Two simple questions clarify the situation. Who stands to lose when Liberty erodes? (Hint: citizens) Who stands to gain when Liberty erodes? (Hint: elitists and their minions.)
The right to life (however it may be interpreted)is an internationally recognized guarantee for all people of all nations. However each country may interpret such right, it exists in some form or another (with certain exceptions, such as capital punishment or late term abortion, which may be considered an encroachment on this right, depending upon which country you may find yourself in) in all countries there does exist some guarantee, somewhere in the legal code guaranteeing that you will not be killed by your fellow man. The same cannot be said for a "right" for mere citizens to possess, use and proliferate small arms. Some countries such as the U.S. appear to recognize that a right to small arms applies to civilians, not conveying public authority. Other countries do not recognize any right to small arms, including many which enact measures of restricting arms to licensed individuals, prohibiting certain forms of small arms, or by restricting their use to state actors, security agencies, persons conveying public authority, and those with other legitimate interests. Does your god prefer to endow Americans with a legal method of obtaining death-dealing devices, while endowing no such privilege, to Kuwaitis, or Libyans, or the people of Formosa? Even American citizens, who would otherwise be entitled to the use of small arms, can be prohibited from possessing them entirely, if they happen to reside on a military base. American Indian tribes may also stringently regulate the possession of small arms on their land. Also some cites exercise such a degree of control over the possession of arms by non state-actors that it amounts to an almost total prohibition. So you cannot make any reasonable claim that mere citizens possess a inalienable "human right" to "keep and bear" small arms, especially under the guise of defending human life, which the practice of gun ownership so frequently ends.
DeleteE.N., your argument boils down to the following:
Delete1. One form or another of our govenrment violates our rights from time to time, so it's fine for the government to take away that right altogether.
2. Other countries violate the rights of their citizens, so the right doesn't exist.
Do tell us, when the Chinese government prevents free exercise of religion, does that mean that there is no right to believe? When the U.S. government holds suspects without trial or judicial review, does that mean that the right to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty should be abandoned?
Your view is that the government can do no wrong and should have to power to decide what rights we may have. That view is dangerous to American liberty.
E.N.
DeleteAny entity that rejects the basic concept of Natural Law and Natural Rights is simply seeking to dominate people for perverted pleasure or to exploit people for selfish gain. The fact that so many governments around the world do it doesn't legitimize it. Nor does doing it for "safety".
Finally your assertion that "the practice of gun ownership so frequently ends[life]." doesn't line up with the facts. About 80 million citizens own firearms in the U.S. and their "misuse" record is astonishingly low. While it is regrettable that probably 1 or 2 armed citizens will accidentally kill someone today ... and another 2 or 3 armed citizens will "snap" and intentionally kill someone today, the other 79,999,995 armed citizens will not. Equally important, those 79,999,995 armed citizens will save some number of lives today when criminals attack. Of course that doesn't show up on your radar because you are not really interested in saving lives.