Want a gun? Not until police see what's in your social media history.

[Curious George]

I am not sure I understand. You do not think you have a right to involve yourself in supporting, modifying or rejecting the very laws that 'we the people' enacted as the basis for our government?

No. I am saying that I should no more regulate @Revoltingest 's guns than I should your thoughts.

I thought I should add that I am not talking about the indiscriminate, arbitrary rejection of existing laws by any random individual out of dislike for a particular law or laws. Nothing like deciding that one does not like the laws on murder and one is going to do it anyway in defiance of the law. I am talking about being actively engaged as a citizen in working towards the legitimate establishment, modification or rejection of a law through established and legal means.

I certainly did not assume you were suggesting arbitrary rejection of existing law.

I agree that regulations should be for compelling reasons and designed to address those reasons justly, specifically and with as few unintended consequences as possible. That ideal is laudable, but as a rule, difficult to achieve.

This is where we part ways. That this is difficult to achieve does not make falling short any less unacceptable when we are discussing fundamental rights.

I suppose it would depend on the scope of the regulation.

I am not sure if I like the word scope here could you elaborate on whether you are using scope to refer to what the regulation is intended to affect or if you are using scope to refer to who is affected by the regulation.

Regulations against killing each other are going to be broad, but constrained internally by definitions for what qualifies as murder, manslaughter, negligence, accident or self defense and the ability to argue based on the evidence, the scope of the law and the definitions contained within the law.

That would ve a separate discussion entirely, unless you hold that murder is a fundamental right.

On the other hand, laws governing occupational safety would not usually be applied to private individuals that are not engaged in the manufacture and distribution of goods. Now I am wondering if the scope of those laws can be applied to the illegal drug trade. Perhaps. We need a lawyer to weigh in on this discussion and all the sidebars.

Again irrelevant.

 

[Curious George]

Well, I can't technically disagree with you given our laws and the Constitution. You and I already knew that. I will lose every argument if we have to assume the validity of the Constitution.

So, what's the point of discussing this with me, if I have to technically agree with you?

I do have various rights actually to base opinions and formalize new laws based on accepted methods of change but that's not what we're discussing right?

Then let us argue the philosophy behind the constitution to see if it is valid.

 

[suncowiam]

Then let us argue the philosophy behind the constitution to see if it is valid.

It's a translation done by experts and it's been decided. So technically it's valid. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Just means I have to follow it.

However, how you and I translate can be much different from another. Does it suggest one of us can be wrong when the judges of the Supreme Court, themselves, quite often contradict each other. This attempt is an act of futility, honestly. There can be no conclusion with our translations.

 

[Curious George]

It's a translation done by experts and it's been decided. So technically it's valid. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Just means I have to follow it.

However, how you and I translate can be much different from another. Does it suggest one of us can be wrong when the judges of the Supreme Court, themselves, quite often contradict each other. This attempt is an act of futility, honestly. There can be no conclusion with our translations.

I am not asking you to translate the ammendment. I am asking: whether you believe that we have a natural right to self defense; whether a right to keep and bear arms relates to that right; whether such a right of defense should be infringed; and, why?

 

[suncowiam]

I am not asking you to translate the ammendment. I am asking: whether you believe that we have a natural right to self defense; whether a right to keep and bear arms relates to that right; whether such a right of defense should be infringed; and, why?

Yes, I believe an individual has a right to defend himself but there are limits. But to properly defend oneself, we have to know how our attacker operates.

So if a government with nuclear powers can harm individuals, does that mean we enable individuals to be armed with nuclear weapons? Obviously, I'm given an extreme case, but it goes down the weapon chain... Tanks, bombs, machine guns...

I don't believe we all have innate liberties. We have to balance it with society, so I don't have a black and white answer to the question of personal defense. In some cases, we can be armed and prepared with certain items and strategies. In other cases, no, it's not acceptable.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, I believe an individual has a right to defend himself but there are limits. But to properly defend oneself, we have to know how our attacker operates.

So if a government with nuclear powers can harm individuals, does that mean we enable individuals to be armed with nuclear weapons? Obviously, I'm given an extreme case, but it goes down the weapon chain... Tanks, bombs, machine guns...

I don't believe we all have innate liberties. We have to balance it with society, so I don't have a black and white answer to the question of personal defense. In some cases, we can be armed and prepared with certain items and strategies. In other cases, no, it's not acceptable.

Is there any reasonable scenario you can imagine where an individuals use of nuclear weapons would be a practical measure of self defense?

 

[suncowiam]

Is there any reasonable scenario you can imagine where an individuals use of nuclear weapons would be a practical measure of self defense?

No, but I pointed that out as an exaggeration. Go down the chain of weapons and ask where do you draw the line? The answer is you draw the line at the realistic environment given to you.

In the US, the reasonable method and I have to agree with this is defense with a gun. Why? Because the environment has been created by an inordinate amount of guns given to the public, legally or illegally. I have no choice but to say that.

In Japan and many other countries, the reasonable method is not with a gun, because the environment made it so.

So if a country made specific powerful weapons legal, then the environment would force the answer to be the same type of weapons.

In other words, changing the environment would force a different answer, over time...

All of which I've noted before.

 

[Curious George]

No, but I pointed that out as an exaggeration. Go down the chain of weapons and ask where do you draw the line? The answer is you draw the line at the realistic environment given to you.

In the US, the reasonable method and I have to agree with this is defense with a gun. Why? Because the environment has been created by an inordinate amount of guns given to the public, legally or illegally. I have no choice but to say that.

In Japan and many other countries, the reasonable method is not with a gun, because the environment made it so.

So if a country made specific powerful weapons legal, then the environment would force the answer to be the same type of weapons.

In other words, changing the environment would force a different answer, over time...

All of which I've noted before.

I am not sure if I agree that a gun does not provide reasonable defense in Japan.

If two attackers have knives is a gun not a reasonable defense tool?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Would you give up a specific type of firearm if it meant that no more large groups of school kids were slaughtered? That people could watch a concert with a much greater reduction in the risk of being a target for a mass shooter. A person could go to church without the expectation of being gunned down. I think it is less about the philosophical side of this and government control than it is about that question.

The philosophical side of it seems more to me whether that would be the result of more laws or not. This could be tested. Mind you, I am not advocating more laws and do not want to relinquish my rights. I am just trying to gain more insight and look at more than just my side.

For myself sure. I'm personally quite happy with a single barrel shotgun with direct load, or a bolt or lever action caliber rifle. My love for guns stems from my own nostalgia. Either from history or past events in my own life.

My favorite rifle of all time is a lever action Winchester like that of the Old West. I also find musket shooting with black powder rifles extremely intriguing like walking back into time to get a feel of what it must be like to have been a soldier shooting them in the Revolutionary or civil War. Not that I would ever actually want to be in such conflicts themselves.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Is there any reasonable scenario you can imagine where an individuals use of nuclear weapons would be a practical measure of self defense?

Oh man. The things I'm thinking of right now. *Grin*

 

[Curious George]

o, but I pointed that out as an exaggeration. Go down the chain of weapons and ask where do you draw the line?

You please go down the chain and stop when you have a reasonable scenario where a weapon would be a practical tool for self defense. Tell me at what weapon you arrive.

 

[suncowiam]

I am not sure if I agree that a gun does not provide reasonable defense in Japan.

If two attackers have knives is a gun not a reasonable defense tool?

Ok, it can be considered adequate but probably more excessive than US in Japan. Sure, I can reason with that. Does that justify owning a gun in Japan the same as owning a gun in US or in Brazil for defense?

IMO, guns when properly owned and trained to operate would be an effective defensive tool. Hence, why we allow military and police to use. I'm not convinced that a layman which I think many gun owners are in the US are capable of defending themselves correctly with guns as opposed to causing more harm to the public. The question shouldn't solely be about defense but about the benefits and harm a gun can do. I can't assume that a gun in any person's hand even for defense is a good thing for that person or for the public.

 

[suncowiam]

You please go down the chain and stop when you have a reasonable scenario where a weapon would be a practical tool for self defense. Tell me at what weapon you arrive.

I did say it was dependent on the environment.

Kim Jong Un needs nuclear weapons to defend himself from US. Extreme example but still true.

Iranians need nuclear weapons to be more independent from their western counter parts.

For citizens to defend themselves against armies, it will depend on the arsenal the attacking armies present.

You're asking me what is the best defense for an individual to have against another individual. And I just answered you. With proper training and ownership, I will agree it is a gun. Still that doesn't answer the question if that's the best thing for society but definitely it would be great for that individual.

 

[Curious George]

Ok, it can be considered adequate but probably more excessive than US in Japan. Sure, I can reason with that. Does that justify owning a gun in Japan the same as owning a gun in US or in Brazil for defense?

IMO, guns when properly owned and trained to operate would be an effective defensive tool. Hence, why we allow military and police to use. I'm not convinced that a layman which I think many gun owners are in the US are capable of defending themselves correctly with guns as opposed to causing more harm to the public. The question shouldn't solely be about defense but about the benefits and harm a gun can do. I can't assume that a gun in any person's hand even for defense is a good thing for that person or for the public.

You have already made the shift. We are discussing the right to defend oneself and why that right extends to keeping and bearing arms. Guns can be an effective, efficient, and reasonable measure for self defense (including defense of one's own person, family, and country).

It is on this basis that the right to keep and bear arms should move outside the realm of governmental regulation. Not merely in the U.S. but everywhere.

You want to look at individual cases. You want to look at trends. I am looking at principle and philosophy. You then tried the slippery slope argument. I gave you a distinguishing question and now we are back at "look at the trends."

If a weapon is a practical, efficient and effective use of self defense for reasonable scenarios, then it is unjust to deny a person the right to utilize that tool in guarding their self, family, and country.

 

[suncowiam]

You have already made the shift. We are discussing the right to defend oneself and why that right extends to keeping and bearing arms. Guns can be an effective, efficient, and reasonable measure for self defense (including defense of one's own person, family, and country).

It is on this basis that the right to keep and bear arms should move outside the realm of governmental regulation. Not merely in the U.S. but everywhere.

You want to look at individual cases. You want to look at trends. I am looking at principle and philosophy. You then tried the slippery slope argument. I gave you a distinguishing question and now we are back at "look at the trends."

If a weapon is a practical, efficient and effective use of self defense for reasonable scenarios, then it is unjust to deny a person the right to utilize that tool in guarding their self, family, and country.

I am looking at principle and philosophy. Trends are involved. Many nations have banned or limited guns but they did not repeal the right of individuals to defend themselves.

Your supposition is almost to the point that person cannot defend himself without a gun. A person can still defend himself without a gun just not as effectively.

"If a weapon is a practical, efficient and effective use of self defense for reasonable scenarios, then it is unjust to deny a person the right to utilize that tool in guarding their self, family, and country."

I disagree with that. It will depend exactly on the weapon and the experience of the user. And if I bring trends into this, it does not mean I have to follow a specific philosophy that can only highlight black and white. The philosophy in itself is a balance between societal health and individual freedom.

 

[Curious George]

I did say it was dependent on the environment.

Kim Jong Un needs nuclear weapons to defend himself from US. Extreme example but still true.

Iranians need nuclear weapons to be more independent from their western counter parts.

Again with the nuclear weapons. Those are governments not individuals.

For citizens to defend themselves against armies, it will depend on the arsenal the attacking armies present.

Do you believe that is a reasonable scenario? If so what are the most practical, efficient, and effective weapons for individuals to possess?

You're asking me what is the best defense for an individual to have against another individual. And I just answered you. With proper training and ownership, I will agree it is a gun. Still that doesn't answer the question if that's the best thing for society but definitely it would be great for that individual.

So you are questioning whether preserving natural rights are most beneficial to society? Welcome to the conversation.

I say yes.

 

[suncowiam]

Again with the nuclear weapons. Those are governments not individuals.

Do you believe that is a reasonable scenario? If so what are the most practical, efficient, and effective weapons for individuals to possess?


So you are questioning whether preserving natural rights are most beneficial to society? Welcome to the conversation.

I say yes.

I say it depends on the harm that an individual right can inflict on society.

So I guess we're done? LOL

 

[Curious George]

I am looking at principle and philosophy. Trends are involved. Many nations have banned or limited guns but they did not repeal the right of individuals to defend themselves.

Not at all. China for instance heavily censors speech. This does not mean one is not still free to speak.

Your supposition is almost to the point that person cannot defend himself without a gun. A person can still defend himself without a gun just not as effectively.

No, I have never said that. I don't have a gun. I think I can defend myself fine. I simply object to your belief that you have a right to control whether I own a gun or not.

"If a weapon is a practical, efficient and effective use of self defense for reasonable scenarios, then it is unjust to deny a person the right to utilize that tool in guarding their self, family, and country."

I disagree with that. It will depend exactly on the weapon and the experience of the user. And if I bring trends into this it does not mean I have to follow a specific philosophy that can only highlight black and white. The philosophy in itself is a balance between societal health and individual freedom.

Explain why it depends on the weapon and the user.

 

[suncowiam]

Not at all. China for instance heavily censors speech. This does not mean one is not still free to speak.

No, I have never said that. I don't have a gun. I think I can defend myself fine. I simply object to your belief that you have a right to control whether I own a gun or not.




Explain why it depends on the weapon and the user.

I never asserted it depended on one. I think it depends on both. Again, I am not a prohibitionist. I favor control. Part of that control is forcing people that want to own guns to train to a level and then perform periodic training and testing. I don't see that being done here in the US to a level that I feel is safe for society. Definitely, no one needs to own an automatic rifle [which I know is already banned but pointing out the case of weapons as opposed to users.]

 

[Curious George]

I say it depends on the harm that an individual right can inflict on society.

So I guess we're done? LOL

I certainly see the merit in that. And that is the system that the U.S. uses. The U.S. system is designed to treat these infringements with strict scrutiny, amd use caution to hopefully ensure that any curtailment of an individuals right is done specifically to address the harm in question.