Gun "Logic" , The "Right" to Bear Arms?

In my opinion and in the US, natural rights are recognized in our federal and State Constitutions.

 

I retract the strawman comment. Upon review it was indeed a question. My bad.

For the sake of argument let's assume that I take the position that anyone has the natural right to own any weapon at any time. Also for the sake of argument, we'll adopt your definition of natural right which is, "an entitlement granted universally by the laws of nature. Such rights would include anything permitted by nature, from the pursuit of ongoing life liberty and happiness, within one's physical capabilities, to the pursuit of less morally acceptable things, robbery, aggression, brutality."

Using that definition, a person has a natural right to possess any weapon that they manage to...possess. They also have the right to own any weapon that exists since if it exists then nature will not prevent any individual from owning it. So if a person owns a thermonuclear bomb or any weapon that exists, then they obviously have the natural right to own such. Aaaaand I guess we're done here, unless you can find any fault in the argument.

 

Like I said, using your definition, humans have a "natural right" to any weapon that they choose and to use that weapon at any time for anything. You've simply shown the inherent contradictions contained in your fabricated definition. According to you, on the one hand, people have the "natural right" to obtain any weapon and the government has the "natural right" to ban any weapon that doesn't negate the right of people to obtain those "banned" weapons. That just illustrates that you aren't talking about "rights" at all.

You've already shown that people have a "natural right" to own any weapon at any time, so what do you want me to do exactly?

 

Any Thing not specifically enumerated in our supreme law of the land is reserved to the States or the People.

 

Maybe investigating the cause of violence (which has halved in 20 years) instead of blaming an inanimate object that did not cause the violence in the first place would be a good avenue. Gun laws have become increasingly strict in some areas, like Chicago, where the laws have made no difference whatsoever. Why continue down a path that will lead to no results? Because it is the easy thing to do, not the right thing. Law abiding gun owners are not the problem as you insinuate, criminals are the major cause of gun violence and they do not follow the law by definition. No blame on casual gun owners. My guns have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.

 

Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates what is necessary to the security of our free States, whenever the wealthiest are unwilling to pay wartime tax rates, even for a War on Drugs.

 

I make no apologies for being pro gun as set forth in our Constitution ,I feel it's our right to keep and bear arms. I feel that's the question needs to be asked, do you trust the individuals that have made up the last few administration to make that decision.

over the past decade or so, we have seen wars fought over faulty intelligence,faulty ATFoperations such as the Fast and Furious,numerous police failures (most recently LA Police Department has shot almost as many people as Dorner did in mistaken identity)keep in mind these the people that are supposed to protect you.
we need to also mention the media that never misses the opportunity to show how many bad things happen with guns but never seem to publicize all the crimes that were stopped by responsible gun owner's.

so in conclusion I ask, do you trust the individuals who can't get a budget passed in 3 years but have come up with gun legislation in a matter of weeks?do you trust the individuals who have passed legislation without even reading it?do you trust the individuals that have lied, misled and abused their positions, to make these kind of major decisions against the Constitution?do you really think they have your best interest at heart?

for me I look at it this way, the largest arms dealer in the world is telling its citizens that they should give up their guns.so the hypocrisy continues.

 

Actually, those who support the 2nd Amendment are pretty much anti-life, by definition. Yes - bearing arms is not the same as using arms to kill, but since the point of guns is ultimately to kill other humans or animals, one does not need to bear arms except for the purpose of killing - all other "legitimate" uses for guns are very much non-essential.

 

Using that same reasoning, anyone who pays a single cent in taxes is also "anti-life".

 

So according to you because I want to protect my own life and that of my family that I am anti-life?

 

Its self-apparent, isn't it? If you want to employ deadly force, then you are very much anti-life with respect to the life or lives you would employ that deadly force against. That you might want to take a life to save another life that you consider to be more important doesn't exactly make you "pro life".

 

So basically everyone except Jesus, Gandhi, and Mother Theresa is/was anti-life. That's helpful.

 

It is what it is. If you are someone who would take another life in self-defense or in defense of others, then strictly speaking you are not pro-life. It is extreme, but anyone who isn't a true pacifist at the end of the day really is not pro-life in the strictest sense.

Look at it another way. On one side there's a group of people who want to limit the distribution of guns so that people don't get shot. On the other side, there's a group of people who want guns to be widespread, tell us the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens (conveniently ignoring the minority who aren't), and then are happy to let the chips fall where they may. Which of these groups is more pro-life?

 

You are playing with semantics to try to force malicious intent and self defense under the same umbrella. Which is dishonest.

 

This thread is just bizarre. We have one poster insisting that natural rights are anything that is possible within the physical realm and someone else defining pro-life as the belief that a person shouldn't lift a hand even to defend their own life against someone who means them harm.

It's pretty simple, folks. Everyone has the right to life. Nobody is above anyone else; there are no untermensches and ubermensches. There is no rationale that justifies one person arbitrarily taking another person's life, therefore every human being has the right to defend his person from aggression that is initiated by another. As an extension of that right, a human being has the right to obtain an effective means of defending oneself. To deny the means is to deny the ability which is an infringement on the right itself.

If anyone has an argument based on solid logic that can show why the above is inaccurate then I'd love to hear it. So far all I see is squabbling over semantics.

 

See the post above yours and refute the argument if you can.

 

Clearly a background check is an impediment to attaining arms. If possessing arms is a universal right then having a body determine whether or not another body can have arms is clearly an infringement or at the very least, potentially so. I hope I don't have to spell out the connection of that with my previous argument?

As for limiting ammunition, if someone attacks you with a bow and they have 30 arrows and you also have a bow but only one arrow, do you think you possess an effective means to defend yourself?

The answers to your questions were actually contained, though not explicitly, in my previous post if you care to read and understand it.

Now, do you have an argument based on sound logic that can disprove my previous post?

I'll restate for clarity:

It's pretty simple, folks. Everyone has the right to life. Nobody is above anyone else; there are no untermensches and ubermensches. There is no rationale that justifies one person arbitrarily taking another person's life, therefore every human being has the right to defend his person from aggression that is initiated by another. As an extension of that right, a human being has the right to obtain an effective means of defending oneself. To deny the means is to deny the ability which is an infringement on the right itself.

 

While I do agree with you, why are you against certain reasonable caveats on the "right" to bear arms, since the right will exist in a caveated form regardless? Why do you oppose (reasonable and demonstrably effective) gun control measures, while I don't see you defending the rights of the citizenry to own rocket launchers and gunship helicopters?

 

Not at all. The original post I replied to claimed that those who support the 2nd amendment are "pro-life". Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm not saying malicious intent and self defense are the same thing, but I am saying that those who are prepared to kill in the name of self defense are not "pro-life". Maybe they're "pro" their own life, but they aren't pro-life for the person they'd willingly shoot if it came down to it. Guns are nothing but instruments of death - that is their only purpose - whether to shoot humans, to shoot animals, or target shooting (which is really just practicing the skills needed to carry out the other two) they have no purpose except to kill.