12-18-2012, 07:02 PM
Arnie,
I can't disagree with much you wrote above (other than the door metaphor... I don't think the metaphor adequately convey's there might be consequences to trying to open the door). But I think a little doubt and humility is appropriate when philosophizing on such things.
Take this statement:
I have a right to protect myself from those who would do me harm; I have a right to bear _______ to protect me and my family.
Fill in the blank: Pepper spray? Taser? Hunting knife? .22 cal pistol? Desert Eagle? M16? AK47? UZI? Machine gun? Bradley armored vehicle? Tank? B17? Atomic bomb?
What point in the spectrum do you say "yes, as a flesh-and-blood human being, as a law-abiding citizen who hasn't forfeited your rights, you have that right, and nothing can strip you of that right"? And what point do you say "yes, but only if you can prove you can use it safely and keep it safe"? And what point do you say "No. No matter what your credentials, if someone bad got a hold of it, it is just too dangerous"?
You have to remember, a lot of people believe it abstract truths, and those truths don't change (this is fundamentally at odds with progressivism, but that's another subject). The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To a lot of people, those don't change, never, for no reason, no matter what the cost. And to these people (I among them) believe that government intrusion (bans, limitations, etc) into small arms constitutes a risk to those rights. Again, the point is, where do you draw the line? I wouldn't be terribly upset if the government banned so-called assault rifles. I don't think it would do much good, but I don't think a ban on assault rifles constitutes much a risk to my liberty and freedom. I don't think it'd be a bad idea to require gun purchasers to show proof of ownership of a gun safe before purchasing anything bigger than a hand-gun. (It'd be silly to require that for handguns, if it is meant to be available in an emergency). But these items constitute encroachment on our liberty. Of course, we freely give many, many of our liberties to the government as part of the social compact, so being an encroachment on our liberties, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. At what point do you have an acceptable surrender of liberty for the good of society, and what point are your inalienable rights in jeopardy?
Let's say we had a national standard for safety courses for handguns. If you passed a course that met that standard, and you aren't a criminal, and you don't have a history of mental problems, you can buy a hand gun. Sounds reasonable, right?
Let's say we had a national civics and literacy test. If you passed this test, and you aren't a criminal, and you are older than 18, you can vote...
I can't disagree with much you wrote above (other than the door metaphor... I don't think the metaphor adequately convey's there might be consequences to trying to open the door). But I think a little doubt and humility is appropriate when philosophizing on such things.
Take this statement:
I have a right to protect myself from those who would do me harm; I have a right to bear _______ to protect me and my family.
Fill in the blank: Pepper spray? Taser? Hunting knife? .22 cal pistol? Desert Eagle? M16? AK47? UZI? Machine gun? Bradley armored vehicle? Tank? B17? Atomic bomb?
What point in the spectrum do you say "yes, as a flesh-and-blood human being, as a law-abiding citizen who hasn't forfeited your rights, you have that right, and nothing can strip you of that right"? And what point do you say "yes, but only if you can prove you can use it safely and keep it safe"? And what point do you say "No. No matter what your credentials, if someone bad got a hold of it, it is just too dangerous"?
You have to remember, a lot of people believe it abstract truths, and those truths don't change (this is fundamentally at odds with progressivism, but that's another subject). The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To a lot of people, those don't change, never, for no reason, no matter what the cost. And to these people (I among them) believe that government intrusion (bans, limitations, etc) into small arms constitutes a risk to those rights. Again, the point is, where do you draw the line? I wouldn't be terribly upset if the government banned so-called assault rifles. I don't think it would do much good, but I don't think a ban on assault rifles constitutes much a risk to my liberty and freedom. I don't think it'd be a bad idea to require gun purchasers to show proof of ownership of a gun safe before purchasing anything bigger than a hand-gun. (It'd be silly to require that for handguns, if it is meant to be available in an emergency). But these items constitute encroachment on our liberty. Of course, we freely give many, many of our liberties to the government as part of the social compact, so being an encroachment on our liberties, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. At what point do you have an acceptable surrender of liberty for the good of society, and what point are your inalienable rights in jeopardy?
Let's say we had a national standard for safety courses for handguns. If you passed a course that met that standard, and you aren't a criminal, and you don't have a history of mental problems, you can buy a hand gun. Sounds reasonable, right?
Let's say we had a national civics and literacy test. If you passed this test, and you aren't a criminal, and you are older than 18, you can vote...