You meet the nicest people at the gun range...

You can't not doesn't not, but we will allow for your literacy.
A few years ago, I was in a Walmart. I saw a silly young black guy, wearing his pants around his bum, and embellished with some colorful "fashion accents". He was open carrying. I had an impulse to call security, but I knew that OC at our local Walmarts was a contentious issue at the time. (We eventually won, when Walmart ruled that stores will observe local laws as policy). As long as he was clean enough to pass a NICS check, his appearance had nothing to do with his freedom. Or maybe everything.
Once in a great while, I'm challenged by someone like that. I wouldn't trust him to operate an electric toothbrush either, but unless I see him doing it wrong, it's not for me to call him on it.

 

There you go folks.
Everything you need to know about those who seek more gun control.

- - - Updated - - -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

 

Trying to solve the "problem" represented by Sandyhook by making it harder for the law abiding to get guns ignores the issue - in the worst possible way.

 

It's not really my problem you don't know one of the core concepts of modern law. Did you ever read Weber or political science? History?

Here... This Wiki article should be a good start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

 

Nowhere is the state having a monopoly on force a core concept of modern law.

 

Yes... Random internet guy says so with no sources to back it up.
Read Weber. He is pretty good.

From Wiki I linked to.

 

From the Wiki you linked to:

....the "monopoly" does not mean that only the government may use physical force, but that the state is the only source of legitimacy for all physical coercion or adjudication of coercion. For example, the law might permit individuals to use force in defense of one's self or property, but this right derives from the state's authority. This obviously contradicts directly with enlightenment principles of individual sovereignty that delegates power to the state by consent, and concepts of Natural Law that hold that individual rights deriving from sapient Self Ownership preexist the state and are only recognized and guaranteed by the state which may be restricted from limiting them by Constitutional Law.

Why do you oppose the enlightenment, personal sovereignty, delegating power to the state by consent of the governed, self-ownership, guaranteed rights of the people, and restrictions on the power of the state to limit the rights held by the people?

 

I am opposed to giving guns to people as it is a recipe for disaster. Especially in times of low public confidence in the state. Also... People are crazy. They shouldn't have guns. Hell... I prefer my police not to have guns like in the UK or Ireland where I am now. Nothing nicer than seeing friendly police with no guns.

You don't need them in a modern society. Well... Except for the USA it seems. You need guns for everything according to many here.

 

You did not answer the question.
You believe the state should have a monopoly on force - you said so yourself.
Why do you oppose the enlightenment, personal sovereignty, delegating power to the state by consent of the governed, self-ownership, guaranteed rights of the people, and restrictions on the power of the state to limit the rights held by the people?

 

I don't oppose the enlightenment. I oppose giving people firearms. Firearms have nothing to do with the enlightenment. Most countries who can claim to be children of the enlightenment don't give people that right. The reasons being obvious except to many Americans.

 

YOU said the state should have a monopoly on force.
YOUR words.
According to YOUR source, this means you oppose the enlightenment, personal sovereignty, delegating power to the state by consent of the governed, self-ownership, guaranteed rights of the people, and restrictions on the power of the state to limit the rights held by the people.
Why do you oppose these things?

 

Nope... That's what you want to believe. And claiming Weber opposed the enlightenment is quite funny.

 

He was murdered by a psycho.

 

Apparently, you did not read the source YOU provided -- the source that I previously quoted as thus:

To believe - as you do - that the state should have a monopoly on force is, according to YOUR source, to oppose oppose the enlightenment, personal sovereignty, delegating power to the state by consent of the governed, self-ownership, guaranteed rights of the people, and restrictions on the power of the state to limit the rights held by the people.

Why do you oppose these things?

 

In a utopian society yes. Unfortunately not all see the state as legitimate even though they live in a democracy and therefore the state will always need to have a monopoly on violence.
Otherwise you end up with people trying to secede or threatening the government with violence when they disagree with it.
How many presidents have been shot in the USA?

 

So you DO oppose the enlightenment, personal sovereignty, delegating power to the state by consent of the governed, self-ownership, guaranteed rights of the people, and restrictions on the power of the state to limit the rights held by the people.

People like you are why the people that founded this country saw fit to protect our right to keep and bear arms.
Thank you for validating their concerns.

 

Nah... Those are still things you make up. I have not said anything about any of that. My point was and is that having people with firearms is a danger to the state and its citizens.
The rest is your wish to defend gun rights by making stuff up about me.

 

So, we're back to YOU arguing that the state should have a monopoly on force.

According to YOUR source, m the state having a monopoly on force "...obviously contradicts directly with enlightenment principles of individual sovereignty that delegates power to the state by consent, and concepts of Natural Law that hold that individual rights deriving from sapient Self Ownership preexist the state and are only recognised and guaranteed by the state which may be restricted from limiting them by Constitutional Law".

This means YOU oppose the enlightenment, personal sovereignty, delegating power to the state by consent of the governed, self-ownership, guaranteed rights of the people, and restrictions on the power of the state to limit the rights held by the people.

The conclusion here is inescapable, according to the source YOU provided.

 

It is not an enlightenment principle to let people arm themselves. No matter how many times you try to claim so.

 

You clearly do not understand the source YOU posted in support of YOUR position.

Individual sovereignty is an enlightenment principle.
Sapient Self-ownership is an enlightenment principle.
The derivation of individual rights from individual sovereignty and sapient Self ownership is an enlightenment principle.
These principles demand that the individual inherently possess the right to self defense.
If the individual inherently possesses the right to self defense, the right of self-defense does not derive from state authority -- as is necessary, if the state has a monopoly on force.

In arguing that the state must have a monopoly on force, YOU oppose the enlightenment, personal sovereignty, delegating power to the state by consent of the governed, self-ownership, guaranteed rights of the people, and restrictions on the power of the state to limit the rights held by the people.

The conclusion here is inescapable, according to the source YOU provided.

 

The right to self defence means you are allowed to defend yourself. It shouldn't be so hard to understand. All countries I have lived in have laws that says so. All of them would also put you in jail if you used a gun in self defence though as they are illegal.

The only inescapable thing is your gun advocacy clouding everything you read.

 

\
The RIGHT to self defense, that derives from your individual sovereignty and self-ownership. not state authority.

If the state has a monopoly on force, there is no RIGHT to self-defense, just permission to act in self-defense, derived from state authority.
In supporting a state monopoly on force, YOU do not believe there is, or should be, a RIGHT to self defense.

This means YOU oppose the enlightenment, personal sovereignty, delegating power to the state by consent of the governed, self-ownership, guaranteed rights of the people, and restrictions on the power of the state to limit the rights held by the people.

Inescapable conclusion.

 

You seem locked in repeat mode. It's quite boring.
Nothing has changed. You have no "natural" right to own firearms. Any state where people can shoot back at the state is a recipe for disaster. Not to mention the human cost in having those arms in ready availability. Your country is shining example of it. Has been for a very long time.
You are also the country where most presidents have been shot of all OECD countries. That's what happens when you allow people to have guns.

 

It's not MY fault YOU took a position and then refuse to take ownership of it -- perhaps you should be less ignorant of the particulars of the positions you choose to stand upon.

Having taken the position that the state should have a monopoly on force, you, necessarily, oppose the enlightenment, personal sovereignty, delegating power to the state by consent of the governed, self-ownership, guaranteed rights of the people, and restrictions on the power of the state to limit the rights held by the people.

That being the case, people like you are why the people that founded this country saw fit to protect our right to keep and bear arms.
Thank you, again, for validating their concerns.

 

Given how much we "gun people" have compromised away our God-given rights over the years, I think we are too freakin nice sometimes.