Why should we allow ordinary civilians to have a magazine capable of holding ten rounds? If it is decided that a thirty or fifteen or eleven round magazine holds a dangerously excessive amount of firepower, why would it constitute responsible public policy to allow the general public access to a similar amount of ammunition capacity?
Also related is a similar concept:
To what ends justifies the existence of a right (as it appears that the current legal doctrine in the United States views the possession of weapons as a right), if such a right is not necessitated by a articulable need.
It still amazes me that you Americans are allowed to own firearms....
Hope you can give an answer without the dogmatism seen all too frequently on many other blogs.
E.N. appears under yet another silly pseudonym. Rights do not exist to serve any purpose. Rights are the opportunity to achieve purpose that the individual chooses. No right has to be justified by any need.
It still amazes me that you bother going on about the rights that we have. Enjoy your tyranny, whether it's under the thumb of that Korean child or your mother who lets you use her basement.
Do you cast the ignominious two-letter moniker of insanity upon everyone who supports gun control?
It is an absurd concept to bestow a right to fulfill a nonexistent need. Think about it. What you said is self contradictory. It doesn't make sense.
Ok................ we go from the concept of rights to a "Korean child" (the latest manifestation of the Kim dynasty perhaps?) and a "mother who lets you use her basement". Are you posting the rantings of a schizophrenic? Take you meds.
When you write like E.N., you expose yourself for who you are. All these sockpuppets use the same quirks of language, the same phrases, and push the same agenda.
A right isn't dependent on some need. I don't need to express political opinions, read Shakespeare, listen to Bach, and on and on, if mere survival is all that matters. But to be fully human, I have to be able to make choices, to expand my mind, and to explore ideas.
Hey, so the pooch is still alive! Thought something might have happened since there were no responses on your last set of screeds.
ReplyDeleteTo bad it can't be bothered to engage in discussion, preferring to drop a load and not answer anything said in reply.
Laci, do you even bother to read the articles here? Mikeb already posted one about this. You could comment and participate in the discussion.
ReplyDeleteThis one's worth seeing again. And Laci's question is a good one.
DeleteCan't help you there. I get my news from NPR mostly.
DeleteI pose a question;
DeleteWhy should we allow ordinary civilians to have a magazine capable of holding ten rounds? If it is decided that a thirty or fifteen or eleven round magazine holds a dangerously excessive amount of firepower, why would it constitute responsible public policy to allow the general public access to a similar amount of ammunition capacity?
Also related is a similar concept:
To what ends justifies the existence of a right (as it appears that the current legal doctrine in the United States views the possession of weapons as a right), if such a right is not necessitated by a articulable need.
It still amazes me that you Americans are allowed to own firearms....
Hope you can give an answer without the dogmatism seen all too frequently on many other blogs.
E.N. appears under yet another silly pseudonym. Rights do not exist to serve any purpose. Rights are the opportunity to achieve purpose that the individual chooses. No right has to be justified by any need.
DeleteIt still amazes me that you bother going on about the rights that we have. Enjoy your tyranny, whether it's under the thumb of that Korean child or your mother who lets you use her basement.
Greg, what are you on about?
DeleteDo you cast the ignominious two-letter moniker of insanity upon everyone who supports gun control?
It is an absurd concept to bestow a right to fulfill a nonexistent need. Think about it. What you said is self contradictory. It doesn't make sense.
Ok................ we go from the concept of rights to a "Korean child" (the latest manifestation of the Kim dynasty perhaps?) and a "mother who lets you use her basement". Are you posting the rantings of a schizophrenic? Take you meds.
When you write like E.N., you expose yourself for who you are. All these sockpuppets use the same quirks of language, the same phrases, and push the same agenda.
DeleteA right isn't dependent on some need. I don't need to express political opinions, read Shakespeare, listen to Bach, and on and on, if mere survival is all that matters. But to be fully human, I have to be able to make choices, to expand my mind, and to explore ideas.
Rights do not exist to make the tyrant happy.