In the case of U.S. gun regulation at least, I don’t think a piece of paper from over two hundred years ago declaring firearm ownership as an inherent right supersedes the extreme level of gun violence that has long been occurring and largely ignored.
Limited and highly regulated gun ownership for hunting or collecting is one thing, but there wouldn’t be a need for people to amass arsenals of weapons for ‘self-defense’ if guns weren’t so prevalent in the first place. Other first world countries do not have the gun problem the U.S. has.
In the case of U.S. gun regulation at least, I don’t think a piece of paper from over two hundred years ago declaring firearm ownership as an inherent right supersedes the extreme level of gun violence that has long been occurring and largely ignored.
Trump or someone like him was inevitable. Even the “good guys” want the boot so fucking bad.
Individual gun ownership cannot hold a candle to the gross extent to which American police departments are armed and militarized. The notion of a ‘well-trained militia’ safeguarding individual rights from a tyrannical government hasn’t been relevant for most of the country’s history.
This is why I said I wouldn’t debate the issue. Nothing new can be said about it. There’s no fresh ideas to bring up, and it all eventually comes down to it being a fundamental right or not. I’ve never seen anyone convinced to switch their opinion based on a debate. I strongly suspect I never will because nobody that’s willing to debate it in the first place lacks a strong opinion.
Edit: I will say that there’s a difference in terminology here. A fundamental right is one that all people have, whether or not it is enumerated. An enumerated right may or may not be fundamental as well.
That may or may not be word usages formalized for discussion of rights, but it’s the terminology I use to point to why debate is never going to amount to anything. Once something is considered a fundamental right, laws cease to matter because even if those laws abrogate or suppress a right, it remains a right that is being suppressed. And, again, doing so should always require the highest possible standards to occur, and should only be done on an individual basis, not writ large
In the case of U.S. gun regulation at least, I don’t think a piece of paper from over two hundred years ago declaring firearm ownership as an inherent right supersedes the extreme level of gun violence that has long been occurring and largely ignored.
Limited and highly regulated gun ownership for hunting or collecting is one thing, but there wouldn’t be a need for people to amass arsenals of weapons for ‘self-defense’ if guns weren’t so prevalent in the first place. Other first world countries do not have the gun problem the U.S. has.
Trump or someone like him was inevitable. Even the “good guys” want the boot so fucking bad.
Individual gun ownership cannot hold a candle to the gross extent to which American police departments are armed and militarized. The notion of a ‘well-trained militia’ safeguarding individual rights from a tyrannical government hasn’t been relevant for most of the country’s history.
This is why I said I wouldn’t debate the issue. Nothing new can be said about it. There’s no fresh ideas to bring up, and it all eventually comes down to it being a fundamental right or not. I’ve never seen anyone convinced to switch their opinion based on a debate. I strongly suspect I never will because nobody that’s willing to debate it in the first place lacks a strong opinion.
Edit: I will say that there’s a difference in terminology here. A fundamental right is one that all people have, whether or not it is enumerated. An enumerated right may or may not be fundamental as well.
That may or may not be word usages formalized for discussion of rights, but it’s the terminology I use to point to why debate is never going to amount to anything. Once something is considered a fundamental right, laws cease to matter because even if those laws abrogate or suppress a right, it remains a right that is being suppressed. And, again, doing so should always require the highest possible standards to occur, and should only be done on an individual basis, not writ large