Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

[jay1799]

~SNIP~

The discussion of whether a Right is 'god-given' or natural vs legal, is different from whether it is a privilege or a Right, especially if we are talking about all of our rights enshrined in The Constitution.

I doubt you will find anyone arguing that the Right of the People to not have to quarter troops in their homes is some natural right of humanity. However, it is still a 'Right' afforded to the citizens of this country. And when we are discussing rights as defined under the constitution, imo, it is from a legal definition. As laws are the basis of our society.

Remember, The Constitution is a legal contract between the people and the government the people were setting up. Therefore, those rights are the basis of our legal system. They are, for all intents and purposes...the law of this land. Nothing can supersede those. Nothing.

And thus, from a legal standpoint(lets leave the philosophy out of it), each and every right is equal to another right. While most of us can agree that the Right to not have to quarter troops in our homes seems kind of pointless today...it still holds as much weight legally as the right to free speech.

Bottom line, while you seem to want to discuss Rights from a philosophical standpoint, that debate has no place in this discussion. The discussion is one from a legal standpoint. That is not to say that your views are pointless or without merit. I am not weighing their merits at all. It is just that the discussion you want to have would be better served as its own topic, and probably framed as a philosophical discussion rather than a discussion of laws.

[Sepia and Dust]

Question for you, guido, exzel, and Sundrop: Do you consider regulations to be infringements on rights? (example: First Amendment rights guarantee you the right to speechify with hate rhetoric. Regulations say you can be punished for turning that hate into libel or slander, or worse.)

I would say (speaking generally) that regulations are fine so long as they don't restrict the right to the point where the right cannot be freely exercised. An example might be poll-taxes--those who can't pay can't vote, so the right to vote would be restricted to the point where it couldn't be exercised.

In your example, however, a person's exercise of a right must be curtailed when it infringes on another person's rights; in this case free speech infringes on someone's right to exist. The standard example is, of course your right to punch me ends where my nose begins.

[hossenpepper]

Well, I can't take any issue with anything you said. I will further agree that the right to bear arms is not (IMO, anyway) a natural right, though the rights to self-defense and to hunt for food are.

I hope that--despite our current problems--our most current fragile mesh will hold for a good while longer. We've come a long way since the days of the divine right of kings.

Reasonable debate (such as our exchanges) is the key. I see that as only being possible if we all "get over ourselves" a little and quit seeing ourselves as entitled and instead as privileged and lucky to even be alive to discuss these things. That is why you will always see me reject any assertions that begin with speaking of absolutes or "faith" as their basis. That is simply a way to make a true debate, where opinions are evolved and compromise reached, impossible. It is the very instrument by which kings of old declared themselves to be divinely rightful of ruling and deciding for all, without debate from those ruled. In that scenario, indeed forceful overthrow becomes the only mitigation technique available to the populace. Consider this though: if that government controlled their populace so, they would not grant privileges such as bearing arms or free speech & assembly, as they would be inherently harmful to the regime.

Perhaps there will be a day in our lifetimes that will see the need to defend ourselves against the federal government, but I highly doubt it would be possible. Definitely, if were to come to pass, it wouldn't be a sudden surprise and we would all see it coming for some time.

[exzel]

Question for you, guido, exzel, and Sundrop: Do you consider regulations to be infringements on rights? (example: First Amendment rights guarantee you the right to speechify with hate rhetoric. Regulations say you can be punished for turning that hate into libel or slander, or worse.)

Depends on the regulations I guess – best answer I can give you. Yes, we have freedom of speech, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater without consequence. BUT remember… prosecution for speech violations only takes place AFTER THE FACT... and regulations of gun ownership is different, as it requires "prior restraint." We don’t sew peoples’ mouths shut in the event they might say the things listed above, but that kind of thing is exactly what some are recommending we do by restricting guns. I don’t think people should be allowed to own hand grenades, but I don’t believe we should limit the size of magazines either. IMO, the trick is finding a balance between freedom and reasonable regulation… between unreasonable unfettered gun ownership and unreasonable prior restraint. That is what I believe most of us on both sides believe. But it boils down to what is considered “reasonable regulations” that is the biggest problem, and I don’t see much movement on either side. Like everything else in current politics… the extremes get the largest voice and the largest audience. And I think people in general are finally starting to get sick and tired of the extremes. That’s also why I believe any legislation in the near future, that comes out of the current gun control push, will be meager at best. At the federal level, we might see background checks needed to purchase certain guns, but not much else.

[hossenpepper]

Double snip

Legalities are the written expression of results of philosophical debates. For instance, we have laws against murder. These are not to preserve a legal contract with the state. They are in place because it has been decided by humans that is philosophically wrong to kill others. Hence, any discussion of the privilege to life, pursuit of happiness, etc., is inherently a point of philosophy. That is why legal rulings are call "opinions". That is why there are amendments and changes.

You say you understand a society evolves and changes over time. Yet, to change the gun laws is just crazy to you and signals the end of these privileges. This is because you will not grasp the fundamental tenet that all of these things are born of and subject to change at the hands of, philosophies. Even to say these rights are inherent to men and/or god given, requires a philosophical stance that a god exists and declares it to be so. What's more is that either one of these very basics ways of looking at these things still requires you recognize what a minuscule part each of us as individuals are in the scheme of things. Whether it be humbling yourself before said god or recognizing that you are lucky to be alive in the first place, and nothing, no right, no thing or assurance is owed to you by anything or anyone. Therefore arguing that you deserve for whatever reason (call it your right if you like) to own this magazine or this gun as an expression of an inherent ordained nature, is a very flimsy point at best, disingenuous at worst, and is simply based on your faith that such is true. And once you see things with faith goggles, debates are not possible.

Now once again to you whole point of this thread: I think it's childish to stop reading SK because he supports an organization you oppose. It's really not much different than saying one won't read this because that author is gay, or black or a woman or supports PETA. If you truly are libertarian, while you are in line with your philosophy to do as you like to make such an edict, you are also contradicting it by passing judgment over someone else's expression of their freedom to the point of attempting to impose intentional financial harm (albeit microscopic and devoid of any real effect) upon them.

If you want to discuss the actual essay, its implications, and 2nd Amendment topics, there are other threads for that. This one is about you not reading SK anymore.

[exzel]

A recent study that came out last month indicates that an “assault weapons” ban is unlikely to have any effect on gun violence. Also well worth the read to better inform one on various other matters concerning the gun control issue.

Yes, the link is from the NRA, but don’t let that get you all hot and bothered. The report was obtained by the NRA, but done by the Department Of Justice researchers (the National Institute for Justice).

http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516...olicy-memo.pdf