The Right to Bear Arms

[Christine777]

@Christine777

On the one hand you admit that in your country of residence the police are not capable of properly defending you and that a fair proportion of the populace is armed legally and illegally; yet you hold reservations about the validity of legalized self defence. A 'Right' cannot be conditional on extingent circumstances otherwise it is not a right but permission, permission can be withdrawn by the government at their discretion. A 'right' supersedes the ability of the government to enfranchise or disenfranchise your ability to bear arms.

 

Well, you really stated it pretty obvious. = "

A 'right' supersedes the ability of the government to enfranchise or disenfranchise your ability to bear arms.

I think that is already given - we all knew that.

But I guess you also know that all rights has a limit. That a "right" ends whenever the other exercises his "right" which differ from it. Ultimately, we all has the right to posses anything, including arms/weapons. But for the sake of "common good" many of our governments limit or even deny us of this right (which is not bad). It is here that they exercise their "right" as promoter of order in the society. And please don't try to convince me that this "right" thing is not situational, for in many cases it really is.

Allow me to give an example: We all have the Inalienable Right to Life. How about if a child in the womb threatens the life of his/her mother and the doctor, together with the family, was put into a situation/condition to decide which life to save. How about those country who decide "Death Penalty" to certain crimes. Don't tell me that it is not Conditional/Situational. I have'nt heard (yet) a Criminal sentence to death, and acused his executioner (his government) because his Inalienable right to life supersedes them. "Right" is not only a question of superceding, but mostly a question of where your right begins and where does it end.

 

 

[Balagor]

It deals with the situation in the USA - the stage and risks of public amarment (last but not least for the Obama administration) - and not in court in case of violence.

Don't pussyfoot around, cos that's a waste of time for the reader.

 

 

Actually this topic is called "The Right to Bear Arms"

The topic starter, an American citzen, of cause starts with the situation in his own country.

I for my self have described the situation and laws in Denmark. This is not about USA alone,

but the right to bear arms in general.

 

@ginnyfizz

This situation you describe with police being political, partical,or just unwilling, is well known in DK too. We had an incident last year, to burglars got coght in a mart by the owner and his friend. It gets violent, one escapes, but they hold the other tight to the ground. Police hesitates in the phone, because other urgent things are up, but shows up after 45 minutes. At that time the burglar is dead. They hold him too tight so he is sufforcated. They both got 3 years for manslaugther.

[Aurielius]

 

But I guess you also know that all rights has a limit. That a "right" ends whenever the other exercises his "right" which differ from it. Ultimately, we all has the right to posses anything, including arms/weapons. But for the sake of "common good" many of our governments limit or even deny us of this right (which is not bad). It is here that they exercise their "right" as promoter of order in the society. And please don't try to convince me that this "right" thing is not situational, for in many cases it really is.

Allow me to give an example: We all have the Inalienable Right to Life. How about if a child in the womb threatens the life of his/her mother and the doctor, together with the family, was put into a situation/condition to decide which life to save. How about those country who decide "Death Penalty" to certain crimes. Don't tell me that it is not Conditional/Situational. I have'nt heard (yet) a Criminal sentence to death, and acused his executioner (his government) because his Inalienable right to life supersedes them. "Right" is not only a question of superceding, but mostly a question of where your right begins and where does it end.

 

Ok, I won't attempt to convince you that a 'right' is not conditional, however I believe it is. The Death Row analogy is fallacious, there have been numerous attempts to repeal the Death Penalty on exactly those grounds with little success. I'm sorry if you found my response pedantic but sometimes the obvious is being overlooked, they do not call it a 'truism' for nothing. Though, we are veering off topic with the Death Penalty, another topic for a separate thread..willing to debate it with you.

[Aurielius]

 

Actually this topic is called "The Right to Bear Arms"

The topic starter, an American citzen, of cause starts with the situation in his own country.

I for my self have described the situation and laws in Denmark. This is not about USA alone,

but the right to bear arms in general.

 

@Balagor

As usual, to the heart of the matter, that was precisely the intent of the thread.

 

@ everyone else

Should have amalgamated both replies...hasty fingers makes a poor poster. Mea Culpa.

[Christine777]

The Death Row analogy is fallacious, there have been numerous attempts to repeal the Death Penalty on exactly those grounds with little success.

 

Yes it (DP) would be another topic. And I, too, is willing to debate it with you. But before we go any further, may I know - What Fallacy did I commit? Please name it, for me to know.

 

 

 

[Aurielius]

Yes it (DP) would be another topic. And I, too, is willing to debate it with you. But before we go any further, may I know - What Fallacy did I commit? Please name it, for me to know.

 

 

@Christine777

"Don't tell me that it is not Conditional/Situational. I have'nt heard (yet) a Criminal sentence to death, and acused his executioner (his government) because his Inalienable right to life supersedes them."

 

The example in question, at least 26 cases and counting in state and federal court that I could find, that's just going back 10yrs. Cruel and unusual punishment is more common than that as a vehicle for contesting DP cases.

 

You set the agenda for a DP debate, I'll be there. :thumbsup:

[Christine777]

Yes it (DP) would be another topic. And I, too, is willing to debate it with you. But before we go any further, may I know - What Fallacy did I commit? Please name it, for me to know.

 

 

@Christine777

"Don't tell me that it is not Conditional/Situational. I have'nt heard (yet) a Criminal sentence to death, and acused his executioner (his government) because his Inalienable right to life supersedes them."

 

The example in question, at least 26 cases and counting in state and federal court that I could find, that's just going back 10yrs. Cruel and unusual punishment is more common than that as a vehicle for contesting DP cases.

 

You set the agenda for a DP debate, I'll be there. :thumbsup:

 

I did not see any fallacious error in that. I assume you know the difference between a statement "in question" for needs of facts and a fallacy. And still, you even have'nt named what fallacy that is.

I have not post any topic yet in the debate fora. Perhaps, I'm not just good at posting new topic/s. And I'm sorry I can't post DP for this reason alone.

Let's go back to the thread. :smile:

[Crivil]

I'm european, spanish to be exact, and i have a clear opinion. Not a single european country let their citizens bear self-defense firearms (except very extreme cases, the rest is for hunting porpouses), only the security proffesionals (police, miltary, private security -with special exams and restricitions-) and i see 2 side effects (when comparing with USA):

 

- We aren't "slaves", "tyrant's puppets" neither "dominated by the power" people, we are free democracies and kinda happy with it.

 

- Our rates in criminality and specially murdering/manslayings are way proportionally lower than USA ones.

 

It's obviously a matter of culture, and i respect the way many arms-defenders see this but in the end i think is just a reminiscense of past times.

[ginnyfizz]

Crivil, that certainly isn't the case in the UK where I live. The rate of violent crime is worryingly high, hard as the powers that be try to suppress the figures. And yet our gun controls are among the strictest anywhere in the world. Leading to the ludicrous situation where the criminals just get their guns illegally anyway, because they don't give a stuff, and yet our national rifle and pistol shooting teams, who are world class (and highly responsible citizens to boot) cannot train in the UK, because the restrictions make it impractical. So strict gun control DOESN'T work.

 

And as for us being free democracies, I am afraid a cynical chuckle emanates from this person who lives in what was once called The Mother Of The Free. That is a total illusion. I never thought we should have a US style constitution here in the UK, until I saw successive Socialist governments flush a thousand and more years of liberty, Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus and all that down the toilet. Now I say let's have it, including the right to bear arms, before it's too late!

[Crivil]

Crivil, that certainly isn't the case in the UK where I live. The rate of violent crime is worryingly high, hard as the powers that be try to suppress the figures. And yet our gun controls are among the strictest anywhere in the world. Leading to the ludicrous situation where the criminals just get their guns illegally anyway, because they don't give a stuff, and yet our national rifle and pistol shooting teams, who are world class (and highly responsible citizens to boot) cannot train in the UK, because the restrictions make it impractical. So strict gun control DOESN'T work.

 

And as for us being free democracies, I am afraid a cynical chuckle emanates from this person who lives in what was once called The Mother Of The Free. That is a total illusion. I never thought we should have a US style constitution here in the UK, until I saw successive Socialist governments flush a thousand and more years of liberty, Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus and all that down the toilet. Now I say let's have it, including the right to bear arms, before it's too late!

 

Strict gun control works in most of the countries it exists, for the simple reason than less guns = less gun use. But the problem with guns is mostly an educational one, a well educated society will do a good use of rights, a bad one not. In UK the problem is not about guns at all. US, with the most open gun control in occident, have the worst violent with guns crime rate.

 

And what i meant with the word "democracy" it`s that it's not needed an "armed" population to mantain the government in democratic ways. Most european countries are way more democratic than the "patriot" or "rico" US laws, so guns for the people doesn't means at all more democratic governments.