And this is what I think the far left is missing (note, I find myself to be heavily left-leaning). We may very well be *at* the middle ground. The fact that gun-related deaths make up 1.3% of preventable deaths in the US, despite there being what, 1.3 guns per person in the US? Might actually be a staggeringly good number all things considered. Every time an event like this happens, horrible though it may be, there's a subsect of people jumping at the chance to erode our liberties just a little bit more in return for some perceived safety.Economists are interested in prices. They ask questions like what is the right amount of pollution? Having no pollution is obviously too costly to society (it would mean essentially a regression to the Stone age). At the same time having no pollution control is completely unacceptable as well. There is a point in the middle where the cost and drawbacks of pollution control balance each other out.
I think this is what the far right isn't grasping. Gun control advocates don't want all gun deaths eliminated. The cost of that would be incredible to society and is completely unpalatable. However certainly there is a medium where the costs and benefits are equal. We are currently no where near that medium.
Not really. Again, I urge you to read some of the writers I mentioned. The evolution of natural rights arose out of early 15th century thought (perhaps earlier). Natural rights predated the creation of the US. But foundational to our Constitution is the idea of natural rights. The right to be secure in oneself for example is a natural right. The Government does not grant you that right, it is inherent to us. The Government can take it away, but only God can give it (or just nature if not a believer).That means that you can define anything as a right.
Bill of rights and Declaration codifies the unalienable rights of humans, and what the government is permitted to do. Everything else, the courts decide based on common law which is far more changeable than the Constitution. Precedents usually attempt to tail off existing law/previous precedents, where possible, as enshrining 'new rights' tends to lead to unintended consequences.That means that you can define anything as a right.
Not really. Again, I urge you to read some of the writers I mentioned. The evolution of natural rights arose out of early 15th century thought (perhaps earlier). Natural rights predated the creation of the US. But foundational to our Constitution is the idea of natural rights. The right to be secure in oneself for example is a natural right. The Government does not grant you that right, it is inherent to us. The Government can take it away, but only God can give it (or just nature if not a believer).
That's the point of the Constitution and why it was a historic document. It's stating that those things ARE natural rights, and that any who denies it are denying liberty. It's why, as of 1790 or so, the US was the most transcendent (and popular) nation in the world.There is no natural right to be secure in ones self. Go live in a state with no government and see how secure you feel!
One can lead a horse to water.....There is no natural right to be secure in ones self. Go live in a state with no government and see how secure you feel!
Not really. Again, I urge you to read some of the writers I mentioned. The evolution of natural rights arose out of early 15th century thought (perhaps earlier). Natural rights predated the creation of the US. But foundational to our Constitution is the idea of natural rights. The right to be secure in oneself for example is a natural right. The Government does not grant you that right, it is inherent to us. The Government can take it away, but only God can give it (or just nature if not a believer).
I think this is what the far right isn't grasping. Gun control advocates don't want all gun deaths eliminated. The cost of that would be incredible to society and is completely unpalatable. However certainly there is a medium where the costs and benefits are equal. We are currently no where near that medium.
I've never heard a hunter say "I wish I had a heavier gun to carry around" except in cases where that weight was used to absorb recoil.
If you don't want to ban certain stock styles, what DO you want to ban? Semi automatic "military style" rifles are typically identical in function to their semi automatic "hunting" counterparts. They just have "evil" features like adjustable stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs (lol cuz I'm gonna use a bayonet), detachable magazines (featured in many common hunting arms), etc... This is why the assault weapons ban was such a farce. Why would an AR-15 be illegal but a mini 14 / mini 30 be legal?
Many people use bolt actions for dangerous game because bolt actions are typically very strong and necessary to contain the high pressures generated by cartridges typically used for dangerous game. They are also dead reliable and allow a reasonably fast reload. These cartridges generally do not have a semi auto equivalent platform even if the shooter wanted one. Furthermore, most dangerous game hunts don't involve a single hunter. Typically the primary shooter is backed up by at least one more person with a large bore rifle or 12 gauge + heavy slugs.
That really depends on what you are shooting out of the 12 gauge. 12 gauge recoil goes from next to nothing (2 3/4, 3/4 oz #7-9 target loads) to holy hell (3 1/2 heavy turkey loads or dangerous game slugs). Really depends on how many shots you are taking (target shooting vs hunting, etc...) and what your recoil tolerance is. I can shoot 12 gauge slugs all day. My girlfriend won't shoot them at all unless they are the reduced recoil variety (and even then it's only a few... and I have a very soft shooting semi 12 gauge.
That seems like some nice circular logic. These are natural rights because we have a document that says they are natural rights and if they are natural rights we better have a document saying that they are.That's the point of the Constitution and why it was a historic document. It's stating that those things ARE natural rights, and that any who denies it are denying liberty. It's why, as of 1790 or so, the US was the most transcendent (and popular) nation in the world.
A lot of those hunting rifles can accept 10 round or higher magazines (or modified to function with), so they're functionally similar to the AR-15 variants and the like.
Oh they are trying. Right wing sites are all sharing an unofficial claim that he was a Muslim convert.
Few are semi-auto. That feature isn't of much use hunting big game, anyway, because a hunter rarely gets a second shot.
The problem is primarily detachable magazines, and that enables the efficiency of the semi-auto and to a lesser extent the other actions.
Right. You can basically get all of the utility with other actions.
Even heavy loads of 20 gauge are under the lightest loads of 12 gauge. Though recoil felt can depend significantly on other factors (e.g. short people using standard size stocks).
I'm wondering how "inherent" applied only to white male land owners?Ideas are not "Inherent". All Rights exist because People want them to, not because they exist in some objective state. People want them because they weigh the Pros/Cons of having/not having them. That is why the Constitution can be and has been changed. That is also why what may be a Right today may not be a Right in the future or what isn't a Right today may become a Right in the future.
There is no natural right to be secure in ones self. Go live in a state with no government and see how secure you feel!
That seems like some nice circular logic. These are natural rights because we have a document that says they are natural rights and if they are natural rights we better have a document saying that they are.
It is not just the direct cost incurred by the methods of killing or self-defense. An event like this can lead to more surveillance, metal-detector and x-rays in hotels, restaurants, theaters, bars. Which means even more egregious violation of privacy on top of massive-scale inconveniences. (see: our airports) And those policies, if adopted, will further coarsen our collective morale and deteriorate trust in our government. At some point the 2nd Amendment right (which was an invention by the SCOTUS anyway) must give ways to the rest of the Bill of Rights.Nice question. Very thought provoking.
My answer is no. For instance, you can't use methods that will destroy all other life on Earth to save yourself. What if you use a method that kills 2 innocent people to save yourself? What if you have to harm dozens (who don't die) in order to save your own life? Luckily most uses of guns for self defense in America don't actually harm innocents, so your question is more of a really cool thought experiment on some edge cases of self defense and less of actually meaningful real life application.
It is not just the direct cost incurred by the methods of killing or self-defense. An event like this can lead to more surveillance, metal-detector and x-rays in hotels, restaurants, theaters, bars. Which means even more egregious violation of privacy on top of massive-scale inconveniences. (see: our airports) And those policies, if adopted, will further coarsen our collective morale and deteriorate trust in our government. At some point the 2nd Amendment right (which was an invention by the SCOTUS anyway) must give ways to the rest of Bill of Rights.
I see your point. Today I learned that we cannot be allowed to defend ourselves because if we do then our asshole government will shit on us even harder. So screw off, yon Bill of Rights.
You clearly didn't understand a single thing he said.