Gun Control

Kelrax Lorcken wrote:

ren wrote: Gun regulation at state level makes no sense when there is frictionless movement across state borders.

I think gun insurance is a good idea.

Ammunition control could be practical, as well.
There's a country in Europe (I forget which, I'm sorry) where 2nd amendment pushers like to point out the extremely low crime rate, attempting to link that to the very high number of citizens owning fire arms- ignoring several other factors, most relevant being that nobody owns enough ammunition to do serious harm against groups. They specially issue ammunition at shooting ranges, what isn't used is confiscated before you leave, and there are regular inspections to ensure that citizens are in compliance with volume and storage regulations.

I think that would be impractical in the states. Can't get rid of that amendment. But if citizens were forced to have insurance, with penalties to suppliers, manufacturers and distributors as well as owners, people would then be forced to use, store, stockpile etc weapons and ammo in a sensible manner, preserving their 2nd amendment right to form a well trained militia to protect their freedom, while also reducing crime and accidents. How? Insurance companies hate paying out victims, and what they can do is refuse to insure potential victim makers. ( Who could range from messy people whose gun could be found by their little kid, to people with a history of violence or short temper)

ren wrote:

Kelrax Lorcken wrote:

ren wrote: Gun regulation at state level makes no sense when there is frictionless movement across state borders.

I think gun insurance is a good idea.

Ammunition control could be practical, as well.
There's a country in Europe (I forget which, I'm sorry) where 2nd amendment pushers like to point out the extremely low crime rate, attempting to link that to the very high number of citizens owning fire arms- ignoring several other factors, most relevant being that nobody owns enough ammunition to do serious harm against groups. They specially issue ammunition at shooting ranges, what isn't used is confiscated before you leave, and there are regular inspections to ensure that citizens are in compliance with volume and storage regulations.

I think that would be impractical in the states. Can't get rid of that amendment. But if citizens were forced to have insurance, with penalties to suppliers, manufacturers and distributors as well as owners, people would then be forced to use, store, stockpile etc weapons and ammo in a sensible manner, preserving their 2nd amendment right to form a well trained militia to protect their freedom, while also reducing crime and accidents. How? Insurance companies hate paying out victims, and what they can do is refuse to insure potential victim makers. ( Who could range from messy people whose gun could be found by their little kid, to people with a history of violence or short temper)

Mandated gun insurance is just as tyrannical as mandated car insurance. It also impairs those of lower income. It's also an end around way to limit the right to bare arms. Which is violating human rights..

You are meant to control yourself. Government's job is to make sure you're held accountable for your injuries against others. Not control behavior.. any excuse to do so is just that, an excuse..

Uzima Moto wrote: if you want to make sure cars are completely safe from "human error". Make them drive themselves.. but how much freedom does that leave you?

I'm not really looking for the freedom to kill people; especially not over property. If it's between someone stealing my car and me killing them I'd rather they steal my car. It's a thing. That's a person. It's a thing. Things can obviously be replaced. Things have value. People "should be" but aren't considered priceless. Based on the fact that scarcity creates value, the fact that there is only one of you means that your life cannot be replaced and is therefore more precious than your weight in gold. We don't see this because we choose not to see each other's value. We can see our own value just fine, enough to kill others. But everyone else has that same value.

I believe in balance. But when it comes to gun safety we pretend that either everyone gets to have gun or no one does. It's a battle over extremes and we're preventing the middle ground discourse from the edges. For example... fearing for your life? Get a restraining order. If you have a license to use a gun then temporarily I would have the local police station provide you with one during the duration of the order. Why? Because you should be able to feel safe and secure in your own home and if there's a known threat you should have that option.

On the other hand, the bias involved in determining what and who is a threat is often what creates multiple threats and an escalator of threats and violence. We're a society that lives by the sword. Because people have guns they run to them as an option to handle problems that were never life and death problems UNTIL they went for a gun.

I'm 40. I remember the days when dudes used to have fist fights. Now they run for their guns, why? Because they're scared of the other guy doing the exact same thing. A lot of the things we do to protect ourselves, seem good to do on the surface, but it actually makes us less safe. I remember when metal detectors were brought into schools and when people put bars on their doors and windows. They felt safer but their communities started looking more like prisons people reacted to that too. There is action and reaction and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In theory.

I'd much rather go back to those days when you might get jumped. Now people are so scared of getting punched that they think its better to kill. No.... it's not. Either take the beating like a man or fight back. But running to get a gun only shows weakness in my eyes; weakness that is scared to hit back because its scared to hit, scared that somehow the other person is going to kill them with their bare hands and for some crazy reason this person who is fighting you wont stop until you're dead. That's fear. That's fear that makes us think the worst of people. And that same fear is what makes some people turn into the threats that others fear.

ren wrote: I think that would be impractical in the states. Can't get rid of that amendment. But if citizens were forced to have insurance, with penalties to suppliers, manufacturers and distributors as well as owners, people would then be forced to use, store, stockpile etc weapons and ammo in a sensible manner, preserving their 2nd amendment right to form a well trained militia to protect their freedom, while also reducing crime and accidents. How? Insurance companies hate paying out victims, and what they can do is refuse to insure potential victim makers. ( Who could range from messy people whose gun could be found by their little kid, to people with a history of violence or short temper)

That's exactly why I like this idea so much. It actually uses capitalism in a clever way.

Uzima Moto wrote:

ren wrote:

Kelrax Lorcken wrote:

ren wrote: Gun regulation at state level makes no sense when there is frictionless movement across state borders.

I think gun insurance is a good idea.

Ammunition control could be practical, as well.
There's a country in Europe (I forget which, I'm sorry) where 2nd amendment pushers like to point out the extremely low crime rate, attempting to link that to the very high number of citizens owning fire arms- ignoring several other factors, most relevant being that nobody owns enough ammunition to do serious harm against groups. They specially issue ammunition at shooting ranges, what isn't used is confiscated before you leave, and there are regular inspections to ensure that citizens are in compliance with volume and storage regulations.

I think that would be impractical in the states. Can't get rid of that amendment. But if citizens were forced to have insurance, with penalties to suppliers, manufacturers and distributors as well as owners, people would then be forced to use, store, stockpile etc weapons and ammo in a sensible manner, preserving their 2nd amendment right to form a well trained militia to protect their freedom, while also reducing crime and accidents. How? Insurance companies hate paying out victims, and what they can do is refuse to insure potential victim makers. ( Who could range from messy people whose gun could be found by their little kid, to people with a history of violence or short temper)

Mandated gun insurance is just as tyrannical as mandated car insurance. It also impairs those of lower income. It's also an end around way to limit the right to bare arms. Which is violating human rights..

You are meant to control yourself. Government's job is to make sure you're held accountable for your injuries against others. Not control behavior.. any excuse to do so is just that, an excuse..

if you're overseas during the election you have a right to vote but you have to go through a different process. You may need a provisional ballot. If you don't do your part to follow the rules and regulations concerning your right to vote then you yourself nullify that right. The same thing goes for freedom of speech. Not all speech is protected. No matter what rights a person has there are still laws that limit those rights. You have the right to pursue happiness but not order up sex slaves from Amazon because you think that'll make you happy. Rights are not unlimited nor should they be. You should be able to control yourself but the government exists for the inevitable reality when someone doesn't just like they exist for potential conflicts involving other countries that should also be governing themselves. Not every human being can control themselves. Not every human being is mentally or emotionally unstable. And more are becoming unstable trying to adapt to a world in which violence and death are immediate answers to life's problems

ZealotX wrote: If you're overseas during the election you have a right to vote but you have to go through a different process. You may need a provisional ballot. If you don't do your part to follow the rules and regulations concerning your right to vote then you yourself nullify that right. The same thing goes for freedom of speech. Not all speech is protected. No matter what rights a person has there are still laws that limit those rights. You have the right to pursue happiness but not order up sex slaves from Amazon because you think that'll make you happy. Rights are not unlimited nor should they be. You should be able to control yourself but the government exists for the inevitable reality when someone doesn't just like they exist for potential conflicts involving other countries that should also be governing themselves. Not every human being can control themselves. Not every human being is mentally or emotionally unstable. And more are becoming unstable trying to adapt to a world in which violence and death are immediate answers to life's problems

Voting is a civil right. Different from a natural right. One key difference is source of limitation. Since voting is a artificial societal construct. Its limitations are also artificial constructs..

The right to speech is natural and its limits are natural. Slander and fraud are misuse of speech that often naturally brings about retaliation. In a society, courts function as the vehicle to remedy any grievance or violation of right. Retaliation is given up as a sovereign individual right in a society of law.

As for sex-slaves, I don't have the right to own another's body or mind. Govermnent is meant to enforce that protection of person. It doesn't mean I can't voluntarily order women who voluntarily sell their bodies..

Govermnent is meant to remedy. If you want to prevent injury. You're either going to have to educate people or bring them to heel..

Uzima Moto wrote: Voting is a civil right. Different from a natural right. One key difference is source of limitation. Since voting is a artificial societal construct. Its limitations are also artificial constructs..

The right to speech is natural and its limits are natural. Slander and fraud are misuse of speech that often naturally brings about retaliation. In a society, courts function as the vehicle to remedy any grievance or violation of right. Retaliation is given up as a sovereign individual right in a society of law.

...

Okay, I get what you're saying now. Before I didn't understand you were speaking of natural rights vs civil rights or what the government says you can do. So, if I understand correctly, your argument is that you should have the natural right to protect yourself and therefore, by extension, own a gun. Is that correct?

How far do natural rights go in your opinion? Because it kind of reminds me of growing up around a more "law of the jungle" type of mentality. People were afraid of each other. People had to fight to show people they were tough. And in my opinion all we've done is added guns to that equation. And the more scared people are the more they tend to over react to perceived threats which then become perceived slights. It's a slippery slope where the prey becomes the predator.

I see freedom of speech like freedom to breathe. It isn't the same as a right to communicate, or right to collect fresh air.

Freedom of speech should have no restrictions, that being said, publications and mass media are not speech, megaphones are not speech. Making a noise of your choosing with your mouth, To me, is a natural right.

ZealotX wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: Voting is a civil right. Different from a natural right. One key difference is source of limitation. Since voting is a artificial societal construct. Its limitations are also artificial constructs..

The right to speech is natural and its limits are natural. Slander and fraud are misuse of speech that often naturally brings about retaliation. In a society, courts function as the vehicle to remedy any grievance or violation of right. Retaliation is given up as a sovereign individual right in a society of law.

...

Okay, I get what you're saying now. Before I didn't understand you were speaking of natural rights vs civil rights or what the government says you can do. So, if I understand correctly, your argument is that you should have the natural right to protect yourself and therefore, by extension, own a gun. Is that correct?

How far do natural rights go in your opinion? Because it kind of reminds me of growing up around a more "law of the jungle" type of mentality. People were afraid of each other. People had to fight to show people they were tough. And in my opinion all we've done is added guns to that equation. And the more scared people are the more they tend to over react to perceived threats which then become perceived slights. It's a slippery slope where the prey becomes the predator.

The key difference I see between a Free-society and the type of lawlessness you might be thinking of is Retaliation. Without any social agreement of order amongst a large body of people. Folks will retaliate against each other. Either in defense of self or as an imposition of one's own will upon others.. creating the kind of "survival of the fittest" environment you describe.

In a social order designed around natural rights. You would still have a central mechanism where violations could be remedied. Instead of taking justice into your own hands. You retaliate through a neutral court. Prove your case, and your grievance will be rectified..

You could essentially have no rulers, yet still have rules. This is the basis behind modern anarchy.. except most wouldn't see the "state" as necessary as I do..

Uzima Moto wrote: The key difference I see between a Free-society and the type of lawlessness you might be thinking of is Retaliation. Without any social agreement of order amongst a large body of people. Folks will retaliate against each other. Either in defense of self or as an imposition of one's own will upon others.. creating the kind of "survival of the fittest" environment you describe.

In a social order designed around natural rights. You would still have a central mechanism where violations could be remedied. Instead of taking justice into your own hands. You retaliate through a neutral court. Prove your case, and your grievance will be rectified..

You could essentially have no rulers, yet still have rules. This is the basis behind modern anarchy.. except most wouldn't see the "state" as necessary as I do..

What if the offender decides not to go to court? What if they decide to not to participate or cooperate in this system? What if they shoot you or the magistrate before the court date? What if you can't prove your case without anyone collecting evidence in an official capacity? What if the person kills you without any witnesses? Rulers have a tendency to enforce rules. Without rulers how would the rules be enforced? And if there is inadequate enforcement how does this not encourage more lawlessness? People take advantage of the rules we already have. Imagine if they did so knowing they could avoid penalty.