Gun Ownership is a Privilege, Not a Right

[lionking]

Do you think that people don't have the basic right to protect themselves or to feed themselves? Both are legitimate uses for guns.

Sorry, but that is absolutely rubbish. I and the vast majority of people can feed and defend themselves without a gun. You need to do far better to justify a "basic" right.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Do you think that people don't have the basic right to protect themselves or to feed themselves? Both are legitimate uses for guns that have been around for much longer than that "Ambiguous" document.

And both can be achieved without the individual privalage of private citizens owning guns. And certainly with out access to various kinds of weapon.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Sorry, but that is absolutely rubbish. I and the vast majority of people can feed and defend themselves without a gun. You need to do far better to justify a "basic" right.

Again, even if there can be shown a real need to organise hunts and control numbers, this can be achieved through methods outside of an individual owning a gun. Organised hunts are not unheard of. But frankly, there are other sources of food available. Choosing to feed on hunted boar, duck, pigeon, etc, is clearly a porivalege upon the right.

Families are better defended by preventing the need to use a gun, as has already been discussed at some length.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Appeal to antiquity fallacy. Just because something is old doesn't make it right. Look at the bible.

Are deer really such a problem? More of a problem than mass murder?

It doesn't make it wrong either, and the Constitution is not based upon faith in a deity.

Deer are a serious problem in some areas and not a problem at all in others. Besides that a permit (tag) to try and get one is not a guarantee that you will, just that you can go and try. About 1 million car accidents and 200 dead people a year are caused by car vs deer collisions which is much more than there are people killed in shooting sprees in any given year, yes even in this year with at least 2 serious incidents that I can think of.

 

[lionking]

It doesn't make it wrong either, and the Constitution is not based upon faith in a deity.

Deer are a serious problem in some areas and not a problem at all in others. Besides that a permit (tag) to try and get one is not a guarantee that you will, just that you can go and try. About 1 million car accidents and 200 dead people a year are caused by car vs deer collisions which is much more than there are people killed in shooting sprees in any given year, yes even in this year with at least 2 serious incidents that I can think of.

More than a hint of desperation here. Feral deers justify millions of handguns for self defence? Rubbish again.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Sorry, but that is absolutely rubbish. I and the vast majority of people can feed and defend themselves without a gun. You need to do far better to justify a "basic" right.

You dismiss the need to eat and not be eaten (paraphrasing here of course) to not be a basic right? There is no more basic right than that, in fact I'd say that pretty much every other major right stems from those two basic things.

Considering how many people own guns in the USA (there are over 88 guns for every 100 people) saying that the "Vast" majority of them agree with you is ridiculous on its face.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It doesn't make it wrong either, and the Constitution is not based upon faith in a deity.

Deer are a serious problem in some areas and not a problem at all in others. Besides that a permit (tag) to try and get one is not a guarantee that you will, just that you can go and try. About 1 million car accidents and 200 dead people a year are caused by car vs deer collisions which is much more than there are people killed in shooting sprees in any given year, yes even in this year with at least 2 serious incidents that I can think of.

And again, this does not address a personal right to own gun. Why can the forrestry commission or other body organise the hunting and culling of problem species?

 

[Tomtomkent]

You dismiss the need to eat and not be eaten (paraphrasing here of course) to not be a basic right?

Sorry, but that is a straw man. Lion quite rightly pointed out that neither of those rights necessitate the owning of a gun, and can be achieved with out private citizens owning guns.

 

[lionking]

You dismiss the need to eat and not be eaten (paraphrasing here of course) to not be a basic right? There is no more basic right than that, in fact I'd say that pretty much every other major right stems from those two basic things.

Considering how many people own guns in the USA (there are over 88 guns for every 100 people) saying that the "Vast" majority of them agree with you is ridiculous on its face.

Seriously? You expect me to respond to this?

Okay, please demonstrate how not having a gun means I will be eaten? I mean, seriously

And I pointed out accurately that this applies to the vast majority of people. This is a fact independent of the number of Americans who own guns.

Jeez, seriously?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

More than a hint of desperation here. Feral deers justify millions of handguns for self defence? Rubbish again.

She asked if deer were a problem and how it measured up compared to killing sprees (mass murders). I gave her the facts. I'm sorry if they don't fit in with your preconceived notions or opinions from across the pond but what works for you over there might not work for us over here. I believe we had a war or two about it and everything awhile back.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Seriously? You expect me to respond to this?

Okay, please demonstrate how not having a gun means I will be eaten? I mean, seriously

And I pointed out accurately that this applies to the vast majority of people. This is a fact independent of the number of Americans who own guns.

Jeez, seriously?

What part of paraphrasing didn't you understand? The right to defend ones own self is a basic right and it is explicitly not the job of the US government to do so for individual citizens. I don't think that it's unreasonable to be able to defend yourself with the same type of weapon that others may use against you. You may disagree and bring a knife to a gun fight and that's your choice but it's probably not a good one.

This is an American issue, not anyone elses, your weasel words aside.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Sorry, but that is a straw man. Lion quite rightly pointed out that neither of those rights necessitate the owning of a gun, and can be achieved with out private citizens owning guns.

That really depends heavily upon where you live and work. America is by no means a homogenous country.

 

[lionking]

This is an American issue, not anyone elses, your weasel words aside.

I missed the rule where non US members can't comment on things happening there.

Your inability to admit there is a problem is quite telling.

 

[Dancing David]

Owning a gun is not a right - it's a privilege... that few people deserve.

Just because a bunch of guys named gun ownership a right a few hundred years ago doesn't mean it really is a right. Guns were different then.

It's not a right to own Anthrax, for example.

It's time America emerged from the past.

We regulate pit bulls and they kill far fewer than guns.

I am thinking of carrying one in a shoulder bag.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Again, even if there can be shown a real need to organise hunts and control numbers, this can be achieved through methods outside of an individual owning a gun. Organised hunts are not unheard of. But frankly, there are other sources of food available. Choosing to feed on hunted boar, duck, pigeon, etc, is clearly a porivalege upon the right.

Families are better defended by preventing the need to use a gun, as has already been discussed at some length.

Again, 1 million deer are "Culled" through auto accidents alone yet there are still millions more killed by authorized hunters (excluding poachers who take even more) to keep the population under control. Do you have any idea how large and expensive of an effort that would be if the government did it?

Many (if not most) families that hunt rely upon the meat that they bring home. Politics have nothing to do with it.

Again. Knife to a gun fight is the phrase that comes to mind. There is no conceivable way to remove the guns from everyone without violating several other rights along the way. Now you may be fine with that but most people over here would not be quite so fine with it.

 

[Robert Prey]

I'd be grateful if you could show me the scripture which endorses the ownership of powerful firearms.

The inherent right of self-defense is self evident and supersedes all scripture.

 

[lionking]

Why have deer become an important element in a debate essentially about handguns in cities?

 

[lionking]

The inherent right of self-defense is self evident and supersedes all scripture.

So why bring God into it?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I missed the rule where non US members can't comment on things happening there.

Your inability to admit there is a problem is quite telling.

No, of course there is not however when you are discussing situations that are specifically targeted at a specific country and try to use the opinions of people in an entirely different country (or set of countries) just to attempt to justify what you are saying then you are using weasel wording.

I never said that there wasn't a problem. Please point out where I did here or elsewhere. I just don't think that the solution that you seem to want will work, much less be tried here.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

We regulate pit bulls and they kill far fewer than guns.

I am thinking of carrying one in a shoulder bag.

You will probably need a permit for that in a lot of public places just for health code reasons...