What can we do about the shootings?

[Nikolaite]

Nikolaite:

Anarchism is a rejection of government.

Classical liberalism is a type of government style in which subsidiarity is the primary concern. Simply because a person doesn’t understand what subsidiarity is, doesn’t automatically make it anarchy.

I am a proponent of classical liberalism. I am a huge proponent of subsidiarity. I do not find the latter reference much in the definitions of the former. Indeed, Madison was afraid of subsidiarity.

Madison had concerns about the potential of subsidiarity amongst non-homogeneous groups of people, but that doesn’t make subsidiarity not the primary concern. In effect, each man is to have the liberty to pursue his destiny free from undue influence.

 

[Economist]

I am a classical liberal.

You may CALL yourself a classic liberal, but that does not help your argument. The concept of classic liberal is different from anarchy. The classic liberal stance does not discard the necessity of a limited government. There are certain areas where the anarchy is either ridiculous or simply impractical.

A common legal system is a must for a stable society. As such individual “rights” must be curtailed, and must be balanced with the rights of the groups. Without going into details, this follows from our biological nature, since we are both individuals and herd animals.

There are also practical considerations. It would be ridiculous to have every town, city or village to have it monetary system, its own mail delivery, its own railway system with individual track-gauge measurements.

Since the word “liberal” has been tainted, the word “libertarian” was coined to refer to the original “classic liberal”, which minimizes the role of the government to the absolute necessary minimum.

 

[PetraG]

Changing the Constitution requires, among other things, the ratification of 38 of the 50 states. In the current context, good luck with that.

D

I would not have believed the infringement of rights that people were ready to jump into before 9/11 happened, either. The increasing frequency of mass shootings of the citizenry could very well change the way the citizenry views gun rights. The favorability of the NRA with the electorate is going down so fast that candidates for public office actually downplay a favorable rating from the organization. People who want to keep their right to bear arms had better not count on the rest of the public to keep that right encoded in the Constitution if they push this idea that no reasonable limits can be placed on it.

 

[PetraG]

I agree with your thought here if not your word choice. I just say that there is no right to rob any innocent person of their rights, whether it is done with speech, weapons, or anything else. Doing so is by definition not the exercise of a right, but is just criminal. So again, I agree with your thought. The alternative would be something like anarchy, which is untenable, immoral, and would ultimately lead to constitutional republics anyway long-term (since that is in a way the history of humanity in a nutshell—from anarchy to constitutional republics), imo, but that’s an aside.

I am afraid that I am prone to a rather cynical view towards the rule of law in this country. The rule of law is not easily changed, but in the end it will be what people say it will be. There is not a necessary connection with Justice in the “capital J” sense. If people are stampeded by fear (or whatever else stampedes people), the political will is there to do just about anything.

Someone reported that at his inauguration Franklin Roosevelt remarked: “If I prove a bad president, I will also likely to prove the last president.” He knew that even the Constitution’s survival is contingent upon public support.

The disturbing frequency of mass-murder-suicides committed with high-capacity rifles is the kind of thing that stampedes public support in a different direction. It is kind of like the announcement of lottery winners; it doesn’t take a lot of that to change people’s decisions. The statistical likelihood of being personally touched by such an event has a hard time competing with the emotions that come with imagining that the possibility exists.

 

[Nihilo]

Nihilo:

I did answer you. There are no limits to rights, if classical liberalism is correct, and if it is incorrect, then we don’t have rights.

But, how am I to show it? With a thought experiment, where your life is imperiled, and the only thing you have hypothetically within reach is a bazooka or M1-Abrams tank. You can choose to either die, or to use one of those weapons to defend yourself. If it is OK in such a hypothetical case to use those weapons to defend your life, then that is merely agreeing that the right to bear arms is inalienable and absolute. If you instead choose to die for some reason, then you disagree.

No you are not answering me.

Agree to disagree.

I will address this scenario in the first place.

Thank you.

Your life is imperiled and the only thing withing reach is a bazooka. Yes, one can use it in that. But that is different than owning it.

But there is a reason you would use it, and I’m saying that that reason is your right to bear arms, which I believe even this contrived thought experiment demonstrates definitely. And there are plenty of real life circumstances also, that also demonstrates its reality clearly.

Again, is the right to own a fire arm a fundamental human right?

My answer is yes. But I mean by “right” specifically what classical liberalism means by the word. There is no right to violate someone else’s rights; that’s by definition not the exercise of any right, and is in sharp contrast to it criminal, under /according to classical liberalism.

Does this extend to all weapons? Answer my specific question please.

You have agreed that it “extends” to bazookas, at least theoretically /hypothetically.

 

[tafan2]

My answer is yes. But I mean by “right” specifically what classical liberalism means by the word.

Ok, I need a little more clarification. Can you precisely define what, in you view (I am not looking for an argument on this point), classical liberalism’s definition of “fundamental right”.

You have agreed that it “extends” to bazookas, at least theoretically /hypothetically.

No, I have not. I agreed with your statement, if one was within reach, one had the right to use it. That is not at all the same as ownership.

 

[Elf01]

The increasing frequency of mass shootings of the citizenry could very well change the way the citizenry views gun rights. The favorability of the NRA with the electorate is going down so fast that candidates for public office actually downplay a favorable rating from the organization. People who want to keep their right to bear arms had better not count on the rest of the public to keep that right encoded in the Constitution if they push this idea that no reasonable limits can be placed on it.

I hope so. I used to support keeping the second amendment but applying restrictions. Reading the posts on threads like this has convinced me that the second amendment should be repealed.

 

[Nihilo]

Nihilo:

I am a classical liberal.

…The concept of classic liberal is different from anarchy.

That’s what I said.

The classic liberal stance does not discard the necessity of a limited government.

I know.

There are certain areas where the anarchy is either ridiculous or simply impractical.

No one’s arguing for anarchy, least of all me.

A common legal system is a must for a stable society. As such individual “rights” must be curtailed, and must be balanced with the rights of the groups. Without going into details, this follows from our biological nature, since we are both individuals and herd animals.

And that thought is along the marxist spectrum of philosophy, and is contrary to classical liberalism, where inalienable human rights are sacred above all else.

There are also practical considerations. It would be ridiculous to have every town, city or village to have it monetary system, its own mail delivery, its own railway system with individual track-gauge measurements.

Since the word “liberal” has been tainted, the word “libertarian” was coined to refer to the original “classic liberal”, which minimizes the role of the government to the absolute necessary minimum.

“Modern libertarianism” is a distortion of classical liberalism. All these criticisms are directed at modern neo-libertarianism, not classical liberalism.

Classical liberalism approves of Massive government, If that’s what’s required to defend human rights from those who wish to violate them. Modern “Ron Paul” libertarians reject classical liberalism.

 

[tafan2]

I would not go that far. I can accept the right to bear arms, I can accept the District of Columbia vs Heller case that extended this right towards self defense. But it needs to be heavily regulated, and that the court needs to be clear is ok. Yes we have a right to bear arms (certain types) for self defense, but there is nothing wrong with requiring citizens to show they have a need for that self defense.

 

[Odilon]

All I’m asking is:
(1) We enforce the rules on the books for dealer sales
(2) we implement those same rules for private sales
(3) we harmonize the state and federal background check databases
(4) all gun sales require a background check.

Okay, let’s say all that happens (even though much of your desires already exist in one form or another). Will that be your final request for any more new gun laws? Will you stand up and say that we finally have all the gun legislation that is needed and we cannot place any more restrictions on a constitutional right?

 

[Odilon]

I hope so. I used to support keeping the second amendment but applying restrictions. Reading the posts on threads like this has convinced me that the second amendment should be repealed.

Okay, I can respect that. Now start the repeal process and see if you can the required support from the Congress and the states to do it. Barring that, what needs to stop is the constant restrictions that will virtually eliminate gun ownership which only serves as a end run around the constitutionally mandated repeal process.

 

[tafan2]

That is part of the explanation. I don’t deny that hunting can be expensive. But not that more expensive that what people spend at shooting ranges. By the time one accounts for the cost of ammo, shooting range fees, etc. And access to land for many types of hunting is not that hard to come by if one does a little leg work. No, I think much of the drop in hunting is simply because so many people are into assault type weapons, etc. Lets go have fun acting like Rambo. Certainly that is the impression I get going to our local public shooting range these days. People are more than willing to shoot up rounds and rounds of ammo.

 

[tafan2]

I, as a gun owner, will certainly advocate for more tighter restrictions and be very honest about it. I favor license requirements for all handguns and military assault type weapons. The latter I would make similar, although perhaps not quite as strict, as current laws for fully automatic weapons. I faovor getting rid of open carry laws. I think one needs to have a legitimate need for a concealed carry license. I favor limts on magazine capacities (in the sub 6 round range). I would favor restrictions on transportation of firearms.
All of these are negotiable. But these would be my starting positions. I could be wrong on some of them, as I go back and forth at times as to how strict gun laws should be. I do know than even in a very pro-gun friendly state that I currently live in, some of these were the law when I was a kid and no one seemed to mind. So we could go back to say, gun laws of 1950 and see where we stand as a starting point.

 

[tafan2]

As I admitted, that is part of the reason hunting has declined. But I do not believe it is the whole reason.

 

[DaveBj]

has convinced me that the second amendment should be repealed.

Suppose that were to happen. How would you guarantee, and I mean iron-clad guarantee, that the criminals would be disarmed? Because without that guarantee, a repeal of 2A will be a non-starter at best, and the beginning of a new civil war at worst.

D

 

[Economist]

Well, I think I found the perfect solution to stop all these mass shootings, without touching the second amendment or trying the confiscate the guns from their rightful owners. Or even limit the caliber of the guns. It might take a relatively short time, but it would guarantee that all the mass slaughter would disappear.

Can anyone guess it?

 

[Economist]

I hope it’s something retarded like limit the ammunition, because that’s already been struck down by the courts.

The courts can change. Of course making the ammunition unavailable except for the armed forces is the perfect solution. No need for monkeying with the constitution, just let the available ammo run out, and make the sale or import of ammo illegal.

 

[vz71]

Can anyone guess it?

Arm everyone.

 

[Economist]

It’s cute how you think that’s so clever

Is there a logical error in it?

 

[Elf01]

Suppose that were to happen. How would you guarantee, and I mean iron-clad guarantee, that the criminals would be disarmed? Because without that guarantee, a repeal of 2A will be a non-starter at best, and the beginning of a new civil war at worst.

It’s not so much about disarming. Too many people see gun ownership as a divine right and prioritize keeping their guns over saving lives. They don’t even seem to want registration. I blame that attitude on the second amendment so I believe it should be repealed. New sales and ammo sales could then be restricted. It would be a slow process but it would eventually disarm the criminals.