If we understand the right to be a check on tyranny in government, which it is, then the central government knowing the owners of firearms becomes a threat to the very reason for the protection of the right.
Jon
- Status
Jon
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If it really came to a revolt of the people, the government would just naturally assume that everyone has a gun. It doesn’t need a database.
Perhaps. Of course, even then no one is specifically targeted. Look, the whole point is to prevent such a time from occurring.
Jon
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Tell me this: Does a legitimate government have the right to take steps to prevent a revolt?
You mean foes it have the power, and the snswer is of course. The means are already in place: law enforcement and the courts. But a truly legitimate government has nothing to fear of a revolt. In fact, an armed populace is one of the best deterrents of revolt from within.
It isn’t the legitimate government that the right to arms is intended for. It is the illegitimate government, or one that has usurped power not granted it.
Jon
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You didn’t answer the question. I clearly said “right”, not “power”. If I had meant “power”, that’s what I would have written.
Similarly, a populace has nothing to fear from a truly legitimate government. If you are allowing the populace to be armed “just in case” the government turns illegitimate, then why not allow the government to take steps to prevent a revolt “just in case” that revolt turns out to be by really bad people? (Stop and think for a moment about the kinds of groups you would really not want to be launching a revolt. I can’t mention any names in this forum, but one of them is a group that is launching several revolts right now in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Libya.)
I would argue it is one of the worst deterrents, because the revolutionaries benefit from the arms as much as the peaceful public. Do you really want a world where political outcome is decided by who has the most people with guns in the street? That has not worked out so well in the middle east.
Well, then the answer is no. The federal government has no rights. By definition, individuals have rights, and government has enumerated and limited powers granted to it by the people.
The constitution does that. There is law enforcement, and the courts. The FBI is regularly involved in countering illegal activity, including investigating those who would try to overthrow legitimate government.
My having a firearm in no way benefits someone who wishes to overthrow legitimate government. My right to having a firearm, similarly, has no impact one way or another. In fact, it may have negative impact on that revolutionary, as patriotic Americans will stand with a legitimate government. Americans are often willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt in these matters.
Jon
P
pnewton
Guest
While I do not agree in any right to anonymous gun ownership, I appreciate that you have clearly stated two of the major issues. One can, as in your case, agree with one and not the other.
That being said, as anonymity is not a right outlined in the Constitution (or any where else that I am aware of), do you think as a democratic society that the people have the right through their elected officials to enact a law they believe in their best safety, as they did with sex offender registration, and are attempting to do with gun registration?
P
pnewton
Guest
Rights are universal, as is the law. Right to bear arms, and to what extent they will be allowed to bear arms, will be allowed to both the NRA and ISIS sympathizers. We can make some universal restrictions, such as not allowing felons to purchase weapons, but we can’t have one rule for whites, another for blacks, a third for Christians and a fourth for Muslims. Therefore, what one person is allowed to possess does affect us all.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
First of all, I was not restricting my comment to the federal government. I meant government in general, such as state government, or even city government. Considering that these governments normally represent and act in the best interests of their people, my question becomes "Do the people have the right to empower their government (maybe a state government) to protect that government (and therefore the people) from a revolution? Or doesn’t a people have the right to communal self-defense if they so choose to have that defense? And if they do have that right to communal self-defense, must they wait until attacked before taking precautions that would oppose a revolution?
Do they have to wait until shots are fired to take action? I would argue that a huge stockpile of weapons in the hands of faction of the public is reason enough to take legislative action that removes the threat before they start shooting. It is the people’s decision (through their legitimate government) that rightfully decides what that action should be.
A law that applies to people with bad plans must also apply to you, even if you don’t have bad plans. After all, how can the law distinguish between the various intentions in your mind or someone else’s mind? Until we perfect mind reading, this is not practical.
G
GEddie
Guest
The “American model” stems indirectly from the Aristotlean one, in which the three best governments were held to be kingship, nobility, and “politeia” (for some reason untranslated, but understood as a wise, impartial participation by citizens), in that order; the worst being democracy, oligarchy, and tyranny, in that order.
But because in his view, “politeia” always turned into democracy, nobility into oligarchy, and kingship into tyranny, the conclusion was that the state should strive to democracy as the best form that could be achieved.
In the 1700s, a historically unique situation occurred for the first time in which a new form of governance could be attempted via physical separation from the old. Because direct democracy was undoable, a representational form of it was tried. But like all others, it was unstable over great lengths of time.
ICXC NIKA
That wasn’t the founders’ collective view. They opposed democracy because it doesn’t protect rights, particularly of the minority. They favored and produced a constitutional representative republic, and while certain democratic principles were used, such as election of members of the House of Representatives, none that I know of favored participatory democracy.
Jon
=
I do not believe the majority of people have the right, using the power of government, to compromise the rights of others. We can see how the compromising of religious rights is being perpetrated in exactly that way as we speak.
Jon
Thanks. For me the issue of anonymity is from the federal government because of the very reason for the constitutional protection of the right. OTOH, I don’t oppose, for example, CCL licensing at the state level, which is not anonymous.
Again, the nature of the second amendment protection is to provide the citizens the opportunity to secure their liberty if government becomes tyrannical. The necessity of anonymity becomes apparent with that understanding.
I do not believe the majority of people have the right, using the power of government, to compromise the rights of others. We can see how the compromising of religious rights is being perpetrated in exactly that way as we speak.
Jon
Agreed. So laws must be crafted in such a way that they, 1) do not compromise protected rights, 2) effectively provide the means by which radical Islamic terrorists, for example, can be stopped, without interference of due process.
Jon
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
It is possible to obtain someone’s criminal record online in a matter of minutes, I have done it myself. In my neck of the woods, oftentimes private sellers will only go through with the transaction if the buyer presents both a valid CCW permit and valid photo ID. The tools are easily accessible to those who want to comply with the law. However, people who comply with the law are the only ones who will be affected by it. All it will accomplish is one more gun charge that prosecutors will drop in a plea bargain.
As a practical measure, I would only accept that if the anti-gunners allowed universal concealed carry permits (similar to a driver’s license) and an end to gun-free zones with a few narrow exceptions.
Gun registration is completely unacceptable. Unless I am proven to be a felon, (even that is rather too generous since a felony is an arbitrary designation which can be changed by government whim) the government has no business knowing whether or not I possess a firearm.
Strawman argument and the old chestnut, “If you have nothing to hid, you have nothing to fear”. Providing a firearm to a felon is already outlawed.
P
pnewton
Guest
It is a straw man only if your initial statement was a straw man, that you should be able to sell a firearm to your brother without any regulation. You stated, “If I sell my gun to my brother whom I have known all his life, who has been harmed?” Unless your brother is a felon, I no one has said that you should not be able to sell a firearm to your brother. Since no one is trying to deny your right to sell a gun to your brother (without cause such as being a felon), you statement was a straw man, and therefore mine is as well, as it was contingent on you making sense.
P
pnewton
Guest
This is always a balance, as is safety and freedom. Maximizing both is not easy. Too many NRA types, as well as gun control enthusiasts fail to grasp that their side is only half of this balance. This means that there will always be cases where overreaching control, or lack of reasonable controls will result in injustice in some cases, and loss of life in others.
I generally agree, though I typically look at the issue from the perspective of erring on the side of individual rights. That doesn’t mean I believe security is not important, only that I believe security is possible without rescinding rights.
So, the hard work is finding a way to security without sacrificing rights, accommodating the rights of gays without confiscating the right to religious free exercise, etc.
Jon
Of course they do, but they do not have the power or right to compromise individual rights. Period. The recent attempts in Congress to prohibit those on the no-fly list is an example of what that can’t do. Due process is a right that cannot be compromised.
Even though the SCOTUS has ruled that law enforcement cannot be held accountable to prevent crime, every effort should be exhausted to prevent crime without violating individual rights. This has already been done numerous times since 9-11. It can be done.
I am no more willing to cede rights than I am willing to submit to those whose very purpose is to terrorize us out of those rights.
Jon
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No compromise on individual rights, eh? I would think that the right to spend my own money the way I want is an individual right. Yet when we live in a society, one of the things that society may legitimately do is levy taxes. Suppose my state decides to spend some tax money on building an expressway right through my favorite park. It is not how I would choose to spend my money. If what you are saying is true, the state has no right to compromise my individual right to spend my money as I see fit. You have essentially ruled out all taxes. That can’t be right, can it?
But you are right in one sense. There are certain, very few, individual rights that no legitimate government can morally take from me. One of those is the right to life. Your task is to prove that the right to remain anonymous about my guns is one of those rights. Do you really think you can make that case that anonymity is one of those basic fundamental human rights?
As a general goal I can applaud efforts in that direction. But I would not turn it into an absolute. If you found out that an unusually large number of weapons were being accumulated at a mosque in your town, would you be just as supportive of their right to anonymity?
- Status