Guns As A " God-given Right"

[Winchester]

Actually, I don't think natural law theory involves morality to arrive at rights - at least not in the sense you are using it (although I could be wrong.)

 

I also don't think gun rights advocates use morality in their main arguments, do they?  Maybe I'm missing something.

 

On the other hand, 'human rights' (excepting those that fall under 'natural law') are, almost by definition, moral principles.  From where I stand they also seem pretty arbitrary, but that's my perspective - I'm sure some PHD somewhere has written a paper explaining why they're not.

My point is that neither side uses force as their justification. Although only gun control advocates are proposing aggression, they do not appeal directly to force as the justification. They don't point out that the entities which will enforce gun control are willing to initiate violence and use it disproportionately in enforcing the personal desires of the gun control advocate. It's always an appeal to safety, to legality, to emotion. Inherent in the gun control argument is a claim of a right to control others, but that's not stated explicitly.

[NotreDame]

To elaborate on this, you believe it's the right of people to have weapons to defend themselves in the cases of tyrannical governments, ergo guns?

 

Or in case of corrupt governments, like Mexico, where the people can't count on the government (local/state/federal) to protect them. 

 

[NotreDame]

My point is that neither side uses force as their justification. Although only gun control advocates are proposing aggression, they do not appeal directly to force as the justification. They don't point out that the entities which will enforce gun control are willing to initiate violence and use it disproportionately in enforcing the personal desires of the gun control advocate. It's always an appeal to safety, to legality, to emotion. Inherent in the gun control argument is a claim of a right to control others, but that's not stated explicitly.

Make sense regarding gun control advocates.

 

As far as gun rights, speaking hypothetically, how would/could those advocates use force as their justification? Isn't "you'll pry my guns from my cold dead hands" an appeal to force? 

 

[EmilyAnn]

Speaking as a Brit, I find the concept that gun ownership is a "right" of any kind to be fundamentally bizarre.

[PhuturePriest]

Speaking as a Brit, I find the concept that gun ownership is a "right" of any kind to be fundamentally bizarre.

 

If it makes you feel better, I live in America and I still find it fundamentally bizarre. :P You always told me I was British at heart, though.

[CrossCuT]

I prefer non-lethal force whenever possible. 

 

:hippie:

[KnightofChrist]

"Those who possess arms are the persons who enjoy constitutional rights" - Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle Book II

"It is from oligarchy that tyranny derives its habits of distrusting the masses, and policy, consequent upon it, of depriving them of arms." - Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle Book V

Edited April 9, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[PhuturePriest]

"Those who possess arms are the persons who enjoy constitutional rights" - Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle Book II

"It is from oligarchy that tyranny derives its habits of distrusting the masses, and policy, consequent upon it, of depriving them of arms." - Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle Book V

 

You're telling me. You definitely have an effed up tyrannical government if they're chopping everyone's arms off.

[Winchester]

Speaking as a Brit, I find the concept that gun ownership is a "right" of any kind to be fundamentally bizarre.

 

But do you believe in a right to prohibit people from owning them and the right to use violence to enforce that prohibition?

[Winchester]

Make sense regarding gun control advocates.

 

As far as gun rights, speaking hypothetically, how would/could those advocates use force as their justification? Isn't "you'll pry my guns from my cold dead hands" an appeal to force? 

Someone could claim that they have a right to own a weapon based on their ability to maintain its ownership, and also claim a right to take other peoples' weapons. I believe this is the typical State position, although it's not stated as such. Might is the justification in a democracy. Democracies never limit their power to the electorate. When a State is established, it never obtains consent of all those to be ruled, it just assumes. In the case of the US, the democracy came in the form of a republic, and consent of the many who were never consulted or were legally excluded from objecting were automatically found to be subject to whatever rules the minority saw fit to impose. There is no legal standing for citizens to either consent or object. All they can do is beg. This is a position of brute force, nothing more. I contend that gun rights of the State rest solely on force. There is a lot of rhetoric about it, but stripped of all that, in the end, the State relies on might and does not know any restraint save that which might anger the masses enough, but the State is adept at marginalizing those who reject its claims to exemption from the normal moral order. 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I have one thing to say about guns and a wise man said it too, lets see if you remember whom that wise man was? "Those that live by the sword die by the sword." Of course i see none of you are saying well lets start shooting people with the gun i own and that it is only there just in case, but there are other ways you can defend yourself outside of war that don't include a gun. In my belief guns are a soldiers rite in war but definitely not a human rite or a god given rite for every man or woman whom want's one.

 

Where not all soldiers nor are we all at war church militant or not, paleeez. :(

 

Of course though i except the u.s constitutions rite that every citizen has the rite to bear arms, but it doesn't say you have to, and it should be locked up in the cuboard or shed or loft or addict or storm shelter till a time come that someone tries to invade or you get a dictator president, that is what tha freakin amendment is for, i even know that and i'm an australian. SHEESHKEBAB.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Winchester]

He who lives by the sword dies by he who lives by the gun.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Just give the criminal your wallet for gods sake and don't shoot the poor bastard.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

He who lives by the sword dies by he who lives by the gun.

 

He who lives by the gun gets a broken hand with a tarzan ninja grip, and disarmed.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Back in the day when punishment was just we used to cut the trigger fingers off both hands of GUN HOES! :P

Edited April 10, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

If it makes you feel better, I live in America and I still find it fundamentally bizarre. :P You always told me I was British at heart, though.

 

 

Join the empire luke, star wars was wrong. :P Or at least you can be an undercover commonwealth cadet, it isn't treason it is democracy. :)

[blazeingstar]

Speaking as a Brit, I find the concept that gun ownership is a "right" of any kind to be fundamentally bizarre.

 

You do realize that there's some irony in a Brit saying they think gun ownership of an American is bizarre, right?

 

 

...considering it was armed citizens who made sure that Americans aren't Brits :p

[KnightofChrist]

You do realize that there's some irony in a Brit saying they think gun ownership of an American is bizarre, right?
 
 
...considering it was armed citizens who made sure that Americans aren't Brits :P

I think it's far more bizarre when one recalls British history. Namely the constant struggle of Liberty between the British people and the British Crown. Long story short, every time a tyrannical monarch would deny the right to bare arms the people would quickly or slowly over time be denied most other rights. This goes back to what Aristotle believed, without the ability to protect one's natural rights by force of arms, one has no constitutional rights (legally recognized rights). Edited April 10, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[Socrates]

If it makes you feel better, I live in America and I still find it fundamentally bizarre. :P You always told me I was British at heart, though.

 

So what exactly is your position here?

 

Do you advocate repealing the second amendment?

 

Do you think the government should forcibly disarm citizens?

 

If so, do you believe in the right to self-defense?

[Socrates]

Actually, I don't think natural law theory involves morality to arrive at rights - at least not in the sense you are using it (although I could be wrong.)

 

I also don't think gun rights advocates use morality in their main arguments, do they?  Maybe I'm missing something.

 

On the other hand, 'human rights' (excepting those that fall under 'natural law') are, almost by definition, moral principles.  From where I stand they also seem pretty arbitrary, but that's my perspective - I'm sure some PHD somewhere has written a paper explaining why they're not.

 

The entire idea that people have "rights" that others ought not to violate is itself a moral principle - though many try to deny that.