Should there be such a thing as an unlimited "right". One that is granted free of responsibility for actions? Even the "right to life' carries with it an inherent responsibility to your fellow man I think the following summarises my position on this http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/12-3-2013/Gun-rights-with-responsibilities/
Rights are fictions we've created. They're just laws, nothing more. Historically rights were basically promises from the crown. In the modern day they're a way for people to take their opinion and objectify it - "if you violate my rights, I won't just retaliate, my retaliation will be justified by the inherent structure of the universe". That's basically what you're saying when you make a rights claim. What an absurd proposition, that the universe has preferences concerning our petty ambitions and squabbles. Reminds me of heliocentrism. [hr][/hr] When it comes down to it, there is no right or wrong set of circumstances absent from perspective. There is no way the world ought to be - just the way it is (and even that's a sketchy concept at best ). So make your will known in the world, whatever it might be. If you feel attracted towards pacifism, all the power to you. If rhetoric about rights tickles your fancy, so be it. If you're a xenophobe Jew killer, to each their own. We're allowed to disagree. When we disagree, we conflict. Nothing more to it. Life is one big game of ambitions and power.
No right is absolute. Your rights end where the rights of others begin. You have a right to life, but not a right to force someone else to sustain you. You have a right to bear arms, but not a right to use your arms to violate the rights of others. You have the right to free speech, but not a right to make others listen. You have the right to practice the religion of your choice, but not the right to force others to practice it with you. With every right, you have responsibilities. When you fail your responsibilities, you lose your rights and not until then.
Agreed And I think that there is also a responsibility to ensure that the firearm you have the right to own does not injure another needlessly
You usually disagree with my last 4 words. You typically want to take guns and ammo away from people before they prove to be irresponsible. You have a right to buy gas for your car, but you don't have a right to mow down a crowd in your car. Would you also ban car and gas ownership?
Actually I don't - you can have as many guns as makes you feel safe BUT you have a responsibility to your fellow man not to allow those weapons to cause unnecessary harm - how you accomplish that is up to you
you are addressing the issue of less that 1% of Americans, but still hold the rest responsible. You always blame the rest of us for the actions of one..... bah, Rights regulated are not Rights, something you may be pushing for. Socialist never believe in the Rights of the Individual............herd mentality
then why have a *(&^ing gun?!?!?!?! ..... I did get that quote right, didn't I? How many folks do you give credit to for being responsible. If we've been responsible all along, we do we need to justify it to the anti-gun crowd? Because they say so? Fear and a lack of knowledge propels the "crowd"
