|
|
|
|
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 12:21:10 AM | | ^^^ depending on the weapon i believe..... that may be true for certain weapons but you can run off with a .22 no problem if its not a handgun..... | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 12:52:10 AM | Yes, Gun shows have very limited restrictions. As a Liberal, I get emails all the time requesting my help. I would like to close that loophole. I think background checks are at least an opportunity to prevent criminals from purchasing guns.
The preferred method for them to acquire guns is the old fashioned way, to steal them from a law abiding citizen! | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 3:08:08 AM | If the American constitution allows for the bearing of arms then you should change the constitution. It was put together years ago without those who created it ever imagining what the world today would be like. The owning and use of arms within a civilised society is no longer necessary. Far too many people are killed or injured with them and they have no useful purpose.
If the constitutions says yes, the you should say yes to a new consitution, one witten for life in the 21st century not one born from a lawless land long gone. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 3:30:17 AM | There is no gun show loophole. It's the same loophole for when I answer an ad in the local paper and buy a used weapon. Should that be forbidden, too? Why don't you talk about the classified section loophole?
Someone with an FFL (Federal Firearms License, which you must have if you are in the business of selling firearms) must perform the SAME checks at a gunshow as if they were selling from their store. Go to gunshow sometime, you'll see.
A .22 is also a firearm, and the same form (Federal Form 4473) must be filled out and checks performed as if you were buying any other firearm.
Someone also asked about "waiting periods". That varies between states. Here in Georgia, there is no waiting period, provided you:
1 pass the instant check system, or
2 Possess a GFL (Georgia Firearms License) you've already passed an FBI background check to have the GFL. (and it saves you $5, too!) | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 3:41:06 AM | Self defence is a human right, and poor families still need to hunt for food. Food is also a human right.
There are laws that regulate who can own a gun, and where and how a firearm my be discharged. If you break the rules or shown to be incompetent, then the right is taken away. This isn't a totaly unjust nation.
Guns are tools, and they can also be weapons too. It is how the person choses to uses it that makes the differents.
Guns are used in target sports like darts, so they arn't pointless. If your not from this country, then you should understand that it in a cultural choice and respect it. If you are and still don't like it, you can always move to Canada. Their laws will be more suited to your liking. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 4:35:23 AM | Self defence a human right is it?. Is that what the insurgents are doing in Iraq, defending themselves, is that what your gangs are doing when they do driveby shootings?, Just how many people die in your country from firearms?, how many of them were 'defending' themselves. If you need defending then thats the police are for. No need to have gunfights at the OK coral anymore.
When you put guns into the hands of people innocents die. The founding fathers of America enshrined this right in your constitution because you were a lawless society and needed them. Now you don't. To suggest that if you break the rules or are incompetent then they are taken away is so ludicrous it's laughable. Trying to make it a cultural thing is equally foolish. What you are saying is that in my culture it's OK to kill someone if I feel the need to. What utter nonsence you speak.
To claim that you need a gun to defend yourself is also nonsence. Where else in the world is as armed to the teeth as America and South America?. These other countries are not experiencing mass killings that you see daily.
Guns are used here in the UK for sport too. That doesn't mean we should all carry one and live with the carnage you have there. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 5:59:54 AM | | ^^^^^^^Yes self defense IS a human right to protect myself and my family. Funny how people try to use things that CRIMINALS ( the insurgents , gangs, etc.....) to justify taking that right away. You say that I dont have the right anymore to carry a weapon yet it was a .32 cal handgun that 8 years ago stopped a burglar from entering my premises and kept him at bay until the police arrive. Where were the police until they arrived? Gunfights at the ok corral?? Please stay at least in the general generatinon we are discussing here. Yes guns are used in the uk and guess what ? NOT by your BOBBYS. You think they can stop someone who does have a weapon ? Hmmmm wait let me blow my whistle and see what happens!. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 11:31:59 AM | OK ibscrooge I give in, lets all get our six shooters out and start blasting away at each other. Sounds like a recipie for success to me. The only need anyone can have for a gun is because they are a coward. Pure and simple. The only reason that Americans need a gun is because they are too frightened to stand up for themselves and fight man o man.
Guns are like knives, the weapons of cowards. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 11:41:50 AM | | ^^^ Judging from your level of argument, this may come as a surprise to you, but people in the US are free NOT to have guns as well. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 12:45:15 PM |
There is no gun show loophole. It's the same loophole for when I answer an ad in the local paper and buy a used weapon. Should that be forbidden, too? Why don't you talk about the classified section loophole?
Ok, so that's the loophole. and yes, I think it's a dangerous one. If there is a system of checks required for buying a new gun, then IMO it rather defeats the purpose if someone can buy a used one without being checked, whether at a gun show or through a classified advertisement. So yes, I think that's a problem. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 12:55:58 PM | you're an idiot, if we rewrite or remove the current protective doc we have you LOSE as well as everyone else
do you really think they would want to continue to protect your free speech rights?
think about that one you bonehead.
and yea it is OK to kill to protect ones freedoms, and if you dont think so STAY OUT OF THE UNITED STATES | |
|
| |
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 2:38:44 PM | I was going to ask Joey-sana that myself but I also need to adress the previous who decided to say that all of us who own weapons are cowards . Lets see if you can understand this. Since I am ex-military and by extension consider all who have served to be an extended family then everyone in my extended family are cowards? How droll and naive can you be? I have experience and training in more weapons than you will ever be able to name or imagine and have faithfully served my country and by extension her allies so how then are we all cowards? As for taking out the six-guns and blasting away how about you doing a bit of research first before you start spouting things like this without any knowledge. As for your assertion that we should all let the police handle the criminals also shows your naivete as the police cannot stop a crime until it has already taken place whereas someone with a weapon who is properly trained in its use can handle the situation should the need ever arise and that of course is something that we all would wish not to happen at all. Take for instance in Texas when the right to carry law was introduced major crimes fell drastically due to the criminals not knowing who may or may not have had a weapon. Doesnt take much imagination to understand that the criminals are the cowards and when faced with equal and as deadly force as they produce they tend to think twice about perpetrating the crime to begin with.
I comepletly believe that laws should be in place to aid in determining who should or should not have a weapon but those laws we already have however with very poor implementation which we admitedly should work to correct. However taking weapons asway from those who are responsible and good citizens is only inviting the criminal element to say well looky here its open season on the Washington DC with their gun laws that all but eliminated citizens from having the right to own weapons did the crime cease? No it got worse! The criminal wont commit the crime unless he knows there is a good chance of success and by eliminating all forms of protection available to the citizen what chance does John Q Citizen have to prtect himself and his family? | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 2:57:27 PM | ...if you are Canadian or European, that collective right is one that is a real to us.... I understand that it is real to you.
If you accept the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution as the basis for a starting point for this discussion (as the supreme court justices must), then one must accept that there is no such thing as a collective right.
Follow the logic of a "collective right":
A "collective right" could not be held by an individual, therefore the right cannot be enjoyed by an individual. Any practice or exercising of that right would be at the permission and control of the collective.
The collective must be a recognized 'official' organization; this is otherwise known as a "government".
Since the "collective" is the government, then the government has rights.
If the government has rights, then laws could never be enacted to infringe upon those rights. Nor could the government be disbanded since that would be the ultimate infringement upon governmental rights. Since the founding documents of the United States say that government must be altered or even disbanded if the people determine it necessary, clearly this means that government doesn't even have the right to exist.
Examining all documents establishing the United States, one will never find a single instance where a right is attributed to the government. Rights are ALWAYS attributed to "the people". It is also important to note that "the people" has always been determined to be individuals, not a collective or any part of government.
As per my earlier post:
- All rights are individual.
- People (individuals) have RIGHTS, they have POWERS, and they have AUTHORITIES.
- In forming the government, people delegate power and authority to government.
- Rights, like responsibility, cannot be delegated.
Montreal Guy,
As you indicate, the Canadian & European model (and history) of government requires a sovereign king or monarch who has a divine right to rule over His (or Her) subjects.
Americans have rejected these concepts as repugnant.
It is interesting to note that Canadians and Europeans have been moving closer to the American model over the past few centuries. You guys have been limiting the absolute power of the king with a more democratic form of government, while still holding on to the concept of a divinely ordained king. This also binds you to the concept of a "collective right".... the royal We, if you will. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 3:15:32 PM |
Ok, so that's the loophole. and yes, I think it's a dangerous one. ... Closing this so-called "loophole" would prevent you giving (or selling) a gun to your neighbor, or another family member. Any transfer of ownership would require you to ask government to grant its permission.
Give your son a shotgun for his birthday?
Sorry ma'am! You are now a dangerous felon and must spend time in prison.
Your best friend is being stalked, and the scumbag stalker will likely kill her?
It is forbidden to give her or loan her a firearm. She can't buy one either, not until next week after her "cooling off period" is over (this one has happened WAY too often!).
Be very careful what you ask for. You just might get it! | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 3:55:53 PM | | ABKRD, I just think that these are relatively minor considerations. And the "cooling off" period, as I am now informed, has been eliminated by the introduction of the instant check database. So if my best friend felt that she needed a gun to protect her from a stalker, I'd first encourage her to contact the police and report her stalker, and I'd then go with her to a gun store. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 4:53:26 PM | Self defence a human right is it?
Dam right! 
If you need defending then thats the police are for. No need to have gunfights at the OK coral anymore.
That assumtion is a wrong one. The US supreame court says that it is the invidual who is ultamitly responsible for his or her own saftey. The police serve and protect the community at large and are not to be held accountable, if someone is killed while waiting on the police. So if you call the police in an emergancy, and they wait an hour to show up (and they most often do) and your killed while waiting. Then you failed to protect yourself, they cannot be sued for failing to protect you.
I don't expect you to understand Beachbum , as you seem to think the government is the answer to all problems. While I and more than half of America, believe that "we the people" will find solutions to our problems before the government does. Independence seems to be alien concept to you, but I don't blame you. We simply were raised in different schools of thought.
Is that what the insurgents are doing in Iraq, defending themselves, is that what your gangs are doing when they do driveby shootings?
It issue of our right to bear arms for Americans is a separate issue than the one in Iraq. The use of IDE's is illeagal here too, and thats how the cowards largly attack our troops. The militarized AK47's they use are illegal here too. Our AK's are watered down semi autos. We can't buy an m16, but we can buy a Ar15, again waterd down semi auto non militarized weapon. So if you imagine the 2nd Admendment grants the American military hardware, you are misinformed indeed.
Ok, so that's the loophole. and yes, I think it's a dangerous one. If there is a system of checks required for buying a new gun, then IMO it rather defeats the purpose if someone can buy a used one without being checked
Now that is a 4th amendment issue as much as it is a gun issue. However it is illeagal to knowingly sell a felon a firearm or amo in any case. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 5:08:07 PM | Nomadic,
Our most populous state has enacted the restrictions you want, along with the waiting period and various additional restrictions. News reports of disarmed women who have been murdered by the people who they have restraining orders against are too common. Try using that piece of paper to defend your friend with.
Other states & cities have a variety of restrictions in addition to federal laws. New York City, for instance, will sell you a "license" (lease, actually!) that you must pay for again and again to be allowed to possess a handgun.... if you can actually convince them of your dire need. They are almost always rejected, unless you are a celebrity or highly connected.
We have a right to own a gun, as has been affirmed by the Heller decision. What other right do we have that requires government pre-approval (a fee and/or license) to exercise?
"A right delayed is a right denied" - Martin Luther King Jr.
Taxing (requiring a fee) to exercise the right to vote was explicitly prevented by the 24th amendment, in response to post reconstruction efforts to prevent blacks from voting.
A whole slew of restrictive firearms laws were passed after the Civil War. All of them were intended to prevent "undesirables" from legally owning guns (blacks, immigrants, poor people, etc).
I seem to recall that requiring a license or fee to exercise a right has been ruled unconstitutional. I'm looking for that decision. Anyone know about this one? | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 5:10:08 PM | | I think the issue of the loophole does at some point need to be discussed though not as an issue of closing the loophole but rather amending the law to include pertinant paperwork to file on the sale or gift of such item or weapon. Not that the law should be done away with but rather changed to reflect a stiffer penalty for the fraudulent use thereof of the law IE make a specific form to be filed with the appropriate authority for the sale or gift. It tickles me though that there are many who do not reside in this country who are weighing in on the issue with the unequivocal stance that all weapons are to be done away with without their understanding of our laws to begin with. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 6:39:19 PM |
We have a right to own a gun has has been affirmed by the Heller decision.What other right do we have that requires government preapproval( afee and/or liscense) to exercise
Well funny you should ask while some have been distracted by your right to bear arms
others have been step by step taking away right to habeaus corpus your right to ask why and what of your accusors you are being accused of,right to assembly,
You can't just gather a group of people together without a liscense to parade or protest
if you get one you have to stay in approved "designated area".
taxing or requiring a fee, not yet but wait until you need a "real i.d." to vote that is still restricting your right and I am sure you will have to pay to get the i.d. A lot of voters will be purged or disqualified if it passes | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 7:29:48 PM | Actually, the importance of this decision and the way it's viewed due to these cultural filters are not unrelated things. Because of that American model the safety of the collective from misuse of firearms is reduced, and the freedom of the individual is empowered. That's done quite willingly, and it's totally within the reality of American culture and political philosophy.
In Canada, because we lack this important difference, we are able to set up gun control laws and universal health care quite easily. There's no "myth" to overcome, to create these things. It's quite different there, and that's why both of these topics trigger debate from Americans rather easily.
We are able to pass laws controlling firearms quite easily, because there's little political opposition to the idea. That's because those weapons haven't had that "infusion" of iconic imagery, history, and political reality seep into them.
They are simply firearms, tools, for target shooting, hunting, or collecting. Therefore are laws are quite relaxed to ownership. All we require is that one pays the money for the gun permit, submits to a police check, and then gets the authorization to purchase it.
You do that once, for each level of firearm you want to purchase. You can quite easily get even a Glock up here, legally, with a bit of investment in time. You can use it at your desire, at places like gun clubs, all day long.
You cannot legally want the firearm for self-defense without triggering some serious questioning - as a primary reason. That's a given here, that the possibility exists that you may have to use it to take another human life to protect your own life and family.
You have a legal right to self defense, but also a high standard comes with that right. That's the concept that a human life is indeed something of great importance, even a criminal one. There are other ways to deal with property crime, and lethal force isn't really an option here as one of those ways.
You cannot, as you can in some states, simply shoot someone running away with your TV, or trying to break into your car. That's why God created insurance. 
Don't for a minute believe that Canadians CANNOT use lethal force, however. We had a recent case in Montreal where a night time police raid on the house of a suspected criminal lead to a gun battle - and the death of a police officer.
That man was acquitted by a jury of the charge of murder. He was totally within his legal rights, under those precise circumstances, to kill the officer - even as a criminal suspect in an investigation, during a raid.
So at the end of the day, we both could have many of the same firearms in our hands, quite legally, and (in the worst case scenario) we both could kill someone if that was required to defend ourselves.
Now back to the general subject of gun control...
The thing is that it conflicts with that quintessential American "reality" of the individual's primacy over the collective.
...if you are Canadian or European, that collective right is one that is a real to us....
I understand that it is real to you.
If you accept the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution as the basis for a starting point for this discussion (as the supreme court justices must), then one must accept that there is no such thing as a collective right.
Well, there is a bit of a logical fallacy involved in that response, since both rights are essentially as real and important to each of us. The difference being those wascally cultural filters popping over our perceptions of reality, in both cases.
Saying that collective rights cannot exist, and then looking northwards past the 49th parallel to see that they do is no great defense for their non-existence. The rick is, one has to change your filter....just like in your car.
The Issue of Collective Rights versus Individual Rights
A prominent issue in human rights is the between collective rights and individual rights. Collective rights protect a group of people, while individual rights protect the individual. It is especially important to take into account both collective and individual rights when condemning certain "violations" of human rights.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0126065/isscollective.html
This is perhaps a good description of the Canadian model, typically, concerning a general overall view of this aspect of individual versus collective rights.
Free Speech: A Surviving Common Right
Freedom of speech is perhaps the best contemporary example of a common right, because it is still recognized, even among socialists, as an individual right. In public places, each individual has a right to express himself, limited only by the equal rights of others. No person, no majority of people, and no agency of the community has a right to interfere with a person speaking within his rights.
It is when people shout down others, or monopolize a public forum to prevent others from speaking, that they go beyond the limits of their rights, for at this point, their speech denies others the similar right to speak, which right the others equally possess.
http://geolib.com/sullivan.dan/commonrights.html
As pointed out in a few threads here on Canadian human rights commissions, and our charter of rights, this is a uniquely different view of the issue than the American model. To Americans, that second paragraph triggers that "American cultural filter". It clashes with that Jeffersonian model that most Americans have grown up with.
In reality however, it's just looking through the links of that fence at another interpretation of the same thing. In Canada, and in most Western European industrialized societies, there's a great importance attached to protecting sub-groups in the population from things like racist views and hatred being spread publicly.
Here that right to free speech carries with it an obligation and responsibility to contain it slightly, to not express or distribute your hatred or racism and contaminate the greater culture with it.
So in a sense we see a mirroring of the same attitude reflected here, with our gun laws. You do have a legal right to own one, and the authorities can be challenged if they reject your application. They have to be able to defend that right in a court to refuse you, and the courts are pretty open about hearing the other side.
I've never known anyone rejected here for a gun permit. It's almost an auto-qualify, if you have any sort of a normal life at all. You pay the money, take your course(s), and then go get your firearm. 
At the end of all of that you have been taught how to legally and safely handle your weapon - and it's obligations. If you don't follow those legal and safety guidelines, you may face some problems. Most of them are not draconian, and are simply common sense things that most accomplished guns owners would do anyway.
So this individual right to gun ownership, even to pistol and revolvers, exists (again for all intents and purposes) in both countries.
The only limits here concern themselves with misuse of the weapon, and the fact that you can't say " I want a shotgun to blow the head off the next guy that breaks through my kitchen window at 3am." as a primary reason on your FAC demand. 
The law still allows you to do it, if that guy comes THROUGH your window, and into your house - and poses a real threat to you or your family, as long as you respond with measured and a corresponding force level to the perceived threat in a somewhat rational manner.
Follow the logic of a "collective right":
A "collective right" could not be held by an individual, therefore the right cannot be enjoyed by an individual. Any practice or exercising of that right would be at the permission and control of the collective.
Let's go back to guns here, in reference to that. A Canadian holds both a legal individual right to own a firearm, and also a legal individual right to use it in self-defense, under restricted circumstances. There's also a collective right not to be a victim of misuse of the same right from others. One cannot be shot dead for trying to break into someone's car to steal it, or attempting to break into a house.
One cannot take that Glock and carry it in your pocket while you go shopping, you must be using it for it's requested use - something like firing at that gun range. If you have that weapon on you, and are within the intended route to the gun club, it's totally legal to carry it - unloaded, and out of general site.
When someone applies for an acquisition licence, the Chief Firearms Officer must notify each spouse or common-law partner with whom the applicant has lived within the last two years. This will enable these individuals to raise concerns about their safety or about the safety of others.
http://www.oxfordcommunitypolice.on.ca/firearm.html
That's a right that applies to all Canadians, a collective right that's actually the singular application of their individual rights to be advised of such things applied to all Canadian citizens . If your wife/girlfriend, or ex-wife/girlfriend applies for a weapon, you are advised. That's done because sometimes they wind up be targets for violent psychotic people with firearms.
If that's the case, that those people closest to you are also (in your mind, with good reason) are such a type of person - it's important to know. That may be (if the evidence stands up in court) sufficient reason to reject someone's "right" to a gun.
Gun owners are supposed to be rational sane people, with a clean record of crime - especially violent crime. There's nothing wrong (again with our filters here) with demanding that.
If you are sane , rational, and record free ?
No problems for anyone involved here. 
The collective must be a recognized 'official' organization; this is otherwise known as a "government".
Since the "collective" is the government, then the government has rights.
The collective here is actually the people,and not the government. It's is their right to not be menaced or have their lives threatened by the misuse of firearms.
If the government has rights, then laws could never be enacted to infringe upon those rights. Nor could the government be disbanded since that would be the ultimate infringement upon governmental rights.
Again, the government here is simply acting in the interests of the general population.
Since the founding documents of the United States say that government must be altered or even disbanded if the people determine it necessary, clearly this means that government doesn't even have the right to exist.
We can throw a leader out far more easily that Americans can, you know. Once he's in there's no four years of power unless impeached. Here he's front row and center in the House of Commons frequently - and he can lose seats if acting in a manner that's not acceptable to the voters.
If it's a minority government situation, it's a day to day thing. Do the wrong thing, at the right time, and say  . It's over.
You better be ready for the election, because it's time to subject yourself to the will of the people again.
Examining all documents establishing the United States, one will never find a single instance where a right is attributed to the government. Rights are ALWAYS attributed to "the people". It is also important to note that "the people" has always been determined to be individuals, not a collective or any part of government.
Again, the government is acting in the best interests of the collective. That's an application of individual rights that becomes a collective right since it's extended to all members of society automatically.
As per my earlier post:
- All rights are individual.
- People (individuals) have RIGHTS, they have POWERS, and they have AUTHORITIES.
- In forming the government, people delegate power and authority to government.
- Rights, like responsibility, cannot be delegated.
Again, that's almost a textbook definition of "speaking American" . It's those cultural filters coloring the definitions involved. That's not "wrong", it's simply the way you see it.
Montreal Guy,
As you indicate, the Canadian & European model (and history) of government requires a sovereign king or monarch who has a divine right to rule over His (or Her) subjects.
Americans have rejected these concepts as repugnant.
Actually that's not quite true. We've rejected those concepts too, in reality. The Queen is a figurehead to us here. She's an iconic image that really has very little to do with our sovereignty as nation. She's a part of our history, on our money, and occasionally visits to give us some of those royal waves she's been brought up to perform.
It is interesting to note that Canadians and Europeans have been moving closer to the American model over the past few centuries. You guys have been limiting the absolute power of the king with a more democratic form of government, while still holding on to the concept of a divinely ordained king. This also binds you to the concept of a "collective right".... the royal We, if you will.
The royal We here is actually equally infused with a "nobless oblige" as your firearms are there. She's an iconic figure that we hold as part of our culture, tradition, and history. That gives her little right to interfere against the will of the people.
She holds much the same position inside her own country, really.
The Royal Family has been somewhat restricted within their castle walls in the last century or so. As long as they rubber stamp what the people desire, then there's no problems with their continuing existence.
She's far less our ruler, than she is ruled by us.
If she stands up and gives a royal command to move right, when everybody else wants to move left ?
In that case she'll be stampeded over in the rush that follows, crown and all.
That's a natural progression in society, if one doesn't take up arms to overthrow a Monarch. Eventually, given enough time, the government will be seen as the true seat of power, and the Monarch transformed into an iconic figurehead. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 8:02:40 PM | FissionMission,
I agree that our rights have been eroded, and continue to be eroded. I think the recent eminent domain decision allowing government to seize land for the purpose of handing it over to a private developer was a VERY poor decision.
The Heller decision recognizing an individual right to own a gun is a good one. I wish it was stronger. This right that "...shall not be infringed" has taken serious beatings over the past 50 years. Federal prosecutors argued that we had NO right to gun ownership, that the rights referred to are meant to protected only the government's right to keep & bear arms. Utter hogwash, since rights do not apply to governments.
With all these rights being eliminated by our government, do you suppose it might be a good idea to exercise this right? | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 8:46:25 PM | Montreal Guy,
In reading through your post I still don't see any rights that are applied to a collective and do not apply to an individual.
The article you provided the link to: "The Issue of Collective Rights versus Individual Rights", does not provide any more illumination. The author talks about child labor, how it violates the rights of this collection of people, and the single solution by Senator Harkin.
Again, there is no "collective right" described.
My argument is that since something labeled a "collective right" is not something that can be applied only to a large group and not to individuals.
Just because you call it a collective right does not mean that it does not apply to an individual person.
Conversely, if something you label a right cannot be applied to individuals, then it is not a right.
Each individual person has rights. This means that all people have rights. Collectively, one could say they have rights. If you take a single person out of that group, they still retain the rights they had; anything lost would be a privilege associated with membership in that group*.
Therefore all rights are individual, cultural filters not withstanding.
* Another take on this could be that the rights "lost" are not actually lost; they're just being denied or violated once the person leaves the group. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/28/2008 10:29:01 PM | I am Canadian and we are for peace not violence. Yes guns don't kill people, people kill people.
There is not need that everyone have a gun. I mean this just give people when they get mad to reach for it and well you know the rest
Thank God I am Canadian | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 12:52:22 AM | ibscrooge,
Just so you know Joey - sana directed those comments at me. She told me in a death threat type email she sent me. Makes me feel so safe to know she can buy a gun in the small ads. Or is she one of the ones who will have them taken away?.
I am sure that you served your country with distinction sir as many have done before you and as a person who appreciates their right to free speech, I would thank you for that. My coments were meant to refer to the old western days where everone had a gun and disputes were settled at 10 paces. Just like they used to be here with sword and pistols in bygone lawless days. We are all now part of a more civilised generation and carrying guns and owning them especially within high population urban areas is unjustifiable.
You yourself make the case for me. If the criminals, who I agree with you are the real cowards, don't know if their victim has a gun or not then they are more likely to have a gun too thats why you have people getting killed, especially the victims, so it reinforces your belief that you need a gun to protect you.Only they don't protect you, they endanger you. Get rid of guns from your society and take away this inailianable right and replace it with the level of gun control other countries have which allow for sports and hunting but not for personal protection.
If someone came up to mug me in the street they would still get a pretty good fight on their hands even though I'm fifty nearly. But what if they had a gun, should I get one too?. Well never been attacked like that in fifty years, never even see a gun up close from either end. Having the right to carry or own a gun has gotten totally out of control in the USA because you think you have the right to them. All you have succeeded in doing is dividing yourselves into two well armed gangs , criminals v vigilanties. Let the police sort out crime not the citizenship. | |
|
|
| Page 7 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
