New Zealanders hand in 50,000 guns after 'assault weapon' ban

[JonNC]

Like it or not, your vote and the first amendment are really all you have.

It is far easier for government to cancel and eliminate your vote than your firearms. They do not need to go door to for to take away your right to vote.
That said, free speech and press and the ballot box are the front line defense against tyranny after the constitutional division and limit of power.

Elect people that value and defend both and we’ll be ok. Elect people that don’t respect the rule of law (looks at current House Speaker and leadership) and you have every right to be nervous.

It is a right under US law, but not an inherent right, so you are correct that I do indeed deny it.

Laws don’t determine rights. “They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”.
Rights are inherent to our being human beings, antecedent to government. Governments can create no rescind rights. The claim that they can confers on government deity status.

Practical wisdom, to be sure. But that does not establish a gun as an inherent right.

Correct. Rights are not created, granted, or established. They are inherent.

You are dancing all around a claim that you can not support. Either support that claim or admit that you can’t.

I’m pretty much standing firm.

Once again, I need no argument.

You have no argument. You’ve provided no evidence to your claims. I have.

 

[JonNC]

The left commit the crime of demanding a government that doesn’t force the religious views of one group upon others. I proudly stand with them on this.

Nonsense. They attempt to limit free exercise. This is currently obvious in the attacks on those who oppose same gender “marriage” on religious grounds, and choose not to participate is such ceremonies through their businesses. The attacks on Jack Phillips, for example, have been nothing short of vicious discrimination. The attack on Little Sisters of the Poor by the Obama administration was worse.

For example, if you want your household to mirror traditional Catholic reproductive rights, Great!

I’m not Catholic (in communion with Rome), but the science is a soon to be born human being is just that: a human being, with human DNA distinct to that child. It is the same DNA he/she will have the rest of their life.

But don’t force your views on my household, thanks!

Many progressives are in favor of repealing the Hyde amendment. That’s imposing their reproductive views on others, taking taxpayer money to execute a soon to be born human being

And I agree that the rule of law requires submission to it. Which is why I want to change it, not launch an armed rebellion.

I would suggest that many who want to confiscate civilian firearms wish to impose authoritarian rule without the threat of armed rebellion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It is a right under US law, but not an inherent right, so you are correct that I do indeed deny it.

Laws don’t determine rights.

Laws do not determine inherent rights, but they do determine other rights, such as the right to carry a gun.

“They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”.

And the right to carry a gun is not among them.

Practical wisdom, to be sure. But that does not establish a gun as an inherent right.

Correct. Rights are not created, granted, or established. They are inherent.

Some are inherent. Some are not. Gun rights are not. Another example of a right that is not inherent is the right to build a 4-story apartment building in an area zoned for single family dwellings. You see, there are plenty of non-inherent rights. Gun rights have a lot of company.

Once again, I need no argument.

You have no argument. You’ve provided no evidence to your claims. I have.

You have provided evidence, but it wasn’t evidence that supports your claim.

 

[PickyPicky]

The thing about rights is they are never unchallengeable, because they can always collide with other rights. You have the right to free speech, but I have the right not to be libelled.

I believe one has the right to protect oneself, ones family and ones property, and I don’t see how that can exclude the right to have the means to protect oneself, ones family and ones property.

Equally I have the right to vote for representatives who will support my protection by providing appropriate laws, courts and police, and armed forces.

Equally I have the right to vote for representatives who will support my protection by limiting access to material and objects which by mistake or in the wrong hands can injure or kill me or my family — certain classes of weapon, explosives, poisons, etc — and by insisting that some dangerous material is kept in secure conditions.

It seems self-evident to me that, all things being equal, the fewer guns are about, the smaller my chance of being shot. Your right to have a gun increases my likelihood of being shot; it’s a clash of conflicting rights. The decision is pragmatic: what is the sensible course to take which gives me and you maximum protection.

I should say, by the way, that although I am very happy to live in a country with very strict gun laws, I do not believe it can be proven from the statistics that stricter gun laws in the United States would reduce death from gunshot. The decision is a pragmatic one and is, obviously, one for US citizens alone.

 

[JonNC]

Laws do not determine inherent rights, but they do determine other rights, such as the right to carry a gun.

No rights are determined by government/laws.
If government grants/provides, it is a privilege and can just as easily be rescinded.
The belief that government grants rights is a fascistic one, and confers on government essentially deity status.

And the right to carry a gun is not among them.

According to the constitution it is

Some are inherent. Some are not. Gun rights are not.

According to whom? The constitution says it is.

 

[JonNC]

The thing about rights is they are never unchallengeable, because they can always collide with other rights. You have the right to free speech, but I have the right not to be libelled.

Libeling someone is not an exercise of free speech. Rights do not come at a cost to another.

I believe one has the right to protect oneself, ones family and ones property, and I don’t see how that can exclude the right to have the means to protect oneself, ones family and ones property.

Equally I have the right to vote for representatives who will support my protection by providing appropriate laws, courts and police, and armed forces.

Agreed.

Equally I have the right to vote for representatives who will support my protection by limiting access to material and objects which by mistake or in the wrong hands can injure or kill me or my family —

Not if it interferes with my right to own them. “Shall not be infringed” excludes majority rule to confiscate that right. Rights are not subject to majority rule.

certain classes of weapon, explosives, poisons, etc — and by insisting that some dangerous material is kept in secure conditions.

None of these is enumerated, so I agree.

It seems self-evident to me that, all things being equal, the fewer guns are about, the smaller my chance of being shot.

By this logic, we have to limit free speech because the more people who can speak freely increases the possibility of you being libeled.
Further, the premise is factually wrong. Over the last 25 years, the number of foreign in civilian hands has grown dramatically, but the number of homicides by firearms has decreased over that period. It is also a fact that the major of those homicides are committed using illegal firearms.

Your right to have a gun increases my likelihood of being shot; it’s a clash of conflicting rights.

Does my owning a car increase your odds of being killed by a drunk driver?
The number of firearms I own has nothing to do with anyone’s chances of being killed by a firearm.
So my rights do not conflict with another’s unless I decide to break the law and shoot someone outside of self defense. And if I did, there are over 100 million firearms owners who have zero responsibility for my actions.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Laws do not determine inherent rights, but they do determine other rights, such as the right to carry a gun.

No rights are determined by government/laws.

You are apparently adopting a non-standard usage of the word “rights” to mean only the inherent rights. In conversational English and in US law, the word “rights” do apply to far more than inherent rights. But if you wish to define your way out of the problem, I will simply adopt your very restrictive definition of rights. And under that definition, there is no right to own a gun. There is only a granted privilege by societal rules. Some societies grant them. Others do not. If you find the word “rights” applied to guns in US documents, that is merely proof that your definition really is too restrictive. You cannot define your way out of a problem.

If government grants/provides, it is a privilege and can just as easily be rescinded.
The belief that government grants rights is a fascistic one, and confers on government essentially deity status.

It takes no deity status to grant the right to build a 4-story apartment building in a residential area - or to deny that right.

And the right to carry a gun is not among them.

According to the constitution it is

The constitution has no authority to define what has been endowed to man by the creator. If the writers of the constitution thought the creator endowed man with that unalienable right (which I don’t believe they did) they would be wrong, according to Christian morality, which contains no such affirmation of a right.

 

[PickyPicky]

Does my owning a car increase your odds of being killed by a drunk driver?

Yes, of course it does. If there were no cars, I could not be killed by a drunk car driver. The pragmatic solution many societies have adopted involves compulsory training for drivers, compulsory licensing of drivers, compulsory licensing of vehicles, compulsory safety checks on cars, compulsory insurance of drivers, and heavy legal penalties for drunk drivers.

Similar solutions can be (and are) introduced for gun owners where this seems the appropriate pragmatic solution. This can lead to infringements being penalised by overriding the right to own guns/cars. The decision in such a case of conflicting rights is pragmatic.

 

[JonNC]

You are apparently adopting a non-standard usage of the word “rights” to mean only the inherent rights.

I’m using the standard American understanding of a right at the founding. It is explicitly described in the Declaration. What I have not accepted is the redefinition by the progressive movement.

In conversational English and in US law, the word “rights” do apply to far more than inherent rights.

These would be covered by the 9th amendment, but government cannot convey a right. It can only provide privileges.
For example, we colloquially say Americans have a “right” to a free education, but that is a privilege that can be removed by government.

there is no right to own a gun.

The constitution disagrees.

It takes no deity status to grant the right to build a 4-story apartment building in a residential area - or to deny that right.

If government grants it, it is a privilege that can be rescinded.

The constitution has no authority to define what has been endowed to man by the creator.

It holds no authority at all to define a right. It merely responds to its purpose of protecting inherent rights antecedent to its exist, which including the inherent right to keep and beat arms.

If the writers of the constitution thought the creator endowed man with that unalienable right (which I don’t believe they did) they would be wrong, according to Christian morality, which contains no such affirmation of a right.

You have provided no source of the Christian morality that you continue to refer to. Your personal definition of Christian morality is fine, but it’s yours alone.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, of course it does. If there were no cars, I could not be killed by a drunk car driver.

So the mere existence of my car, sitting in my driveway, increases your chance of being hit by a drunk driver?
No, it doesn’t.

The pragmatic solution many societies have adopted involves compulsory training for drivers, compulsory licensing of drivers, compulsory licensing of vehicles, compulsory safety checks on cars, compulsory insurance of drivers, and heavy legal penalties for drunk drivers.

None of these respond to your claim that my owning a car increases your chances of being hit by a drunk driver. It doesn’t. These may be positive approaches to the issue, but they do not respond to your claim. We do not blame individuals for the actions of others.

Similar solutions can be (and are) introduced for gun owners where this seems the appropriate pragmatic solution.

Within limits. The difference between firearms and cars is that the right to keep and bear arms is a protected, inherent right. A car is not. Driving one is not.
I think it’s a great idea that high school students go through a firearms safety class as part of their schooling, and heavy penalties already exist for criminal misuse of firearms.

 

[PickyPicky]

So the mere existence of my car, sitting in my driveway, increases your chance of being hit by a drunk driver?
No, it doesn’t.

Of course it does. Get rid of your car, get drunk, and then try to use your nonexistent car to knock me down. You can’t.

Within limits

Well, that’s where the pragmatism comes in.

 

[JonNC]

Of course it does. Get rid of your car, get drunk, and then try to use your nonexistent car to knock me down. You can’t.

My car cannot do anything on its own. I have no control over someone else’s car. My owning a car has nothing to do with another driver getting drunk and hurting someone.

Well, that’s where the pragmatism comes in.

More than that. Rights are protected.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It holds no authority at all to define a right. It merely responds to its purpose of protecting inherent rights antecedent to its exist, which including the inherent right to keep and beat arms.

Nor does it have the moral authority to “recognize” an inherent right that is not actually an inherent right.

 

[JonNC]

Nor does it have the moral authority to “recognize” an inherent right that is not actually an inherent right

So you say, but your dislike of my rights doesn’t matter.

 

[PickyPicky]

My owning a car has nothing to do with another driver getting drunk and hurting someone

Indeed not, but it has something to do with your getting drunk and hurting someone.

If there are no cars on the road, I cannot be knocked down by one. If there is one car, there is a very slight chance of my being knocked down by one. For every additional car there is a slight additional chance of my being knocked down.

 

[JonNC]

Indeed not, but it has something to do with your getting drunk and hurting someone.

So we agree it isn’t the car, but the actions of the owner. We agree it isn’t the owners of other cars.

f there are no cars on the road, I cannot be knocked down by one.

But that still doesn’t make millions of car owners or their cars the cause of one person’s actions.

For every additional car there is a slight additional chance of my being knocked down.

No. If, for example, I live in Norristown, Pa, the act of someone in Tokyo buying a car doesn’t increase the chance that someone nearby goes into a bar, gets drunk and runs into me.
None

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So we agree it isn’t the car, but the actions of the owner.

But as a practical matter, it is sometimes easier to regulate the car than to regulate the action of car owners.

 

[JonNC]

But as a practical matter, it is sometimes easier to regulate the car than to regulate the action of car owners.

Sure, but the number of cars doesn’t increase or decrease the probability of someone Being hit by a drunk driver, and it certainly isn’t fault of innocent people who don’t drink and drive.
In the same way, the number of firearms homicides is not related to the number of legally owned firearms, nor are law abiding civilians who own firearms responsible for the actions of a killer.

 

[PickyPicky]

So we agree it isn’t the car, but the actions of the owner. We agree it isn’t the owners of other cars

Sure, of course the owners are responsible, but that doesn’t stop the number of car accidents having a relationship to the number of cars.

In the same way, the number of firearms homicides is not related to the number of legally owned firearms

That’s going too far. Clearly if there were no firearms there would be no firearms homicides. There might be additional homicides by other means (insert here research etc etc) but clearly there would be no firearms homicides. If there were only ten in the world there might be a very occasional firearms homicide. If there are trillions of the things there are clearly going to be more firearms homicides.

I really don’t see your problem with this reasoning.

So there are loads of firearms homicides. That clearly requires a pragmatic response. Now what the appropriate pragmatic response to this might be is for each society to determine. But there should at least be some pragmatic response.

 

[JonNC]

Sure, of course the owners are responsible, but that doesn’t stop the number of car accidents having a relationship to the number of cars.

Are we talking now about accidents? I thought we were talking about drunk drivers. That isn’t an accident. That’s a choice.
Firearms accidents are in the hundreds each year: 300 or so

That’s going too far. Clearly if there were no firearms there would be no firearms homicides.

The overwhelming number of civilian killings due to firearms in the last 120 years is by government. If there were no governments,…
The majority of civilian homicides using firearms involve illegal firearms, not legal ones.
Let’s start there.

So there are loads of firearms homicides. That clearly requires a pragmatic response.

Indeed. Target those human beings that commit them. At one time, New York was remarkably safe from firearms crimes because of “stop, ask, frisk”. A good starting place.
Put police in those areas where the firearms crime rate is highest.

But there should at least be some pragmatic response.

We have NICS. We have a slew of laws against illegal firearms usage.