Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

that is the one thing I would like to see more gun safety laws forcing gun owners to have training and safety lessons on owning a gun since I believe that would do well on reducing accidental shootings.

Accidental shootings are rare already. Less would always be nice but there's no way to guarantee that and the govt is limited in the amount of regulation they can impose on a right.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

that is the one thing I would like to see more gun safety laws forcing gun owners to have training and safety lessons on owning a gun since I believe that would do well on reducing accidental shootings.

Accidental shootings are rare already. Less would always be nice but there's no way to guarantee that and the govt is limited in the amount of regulation they can impose on a right.

well when I see kids who shoot themselves because their parents were idiots and stupid and ignorant of gun safety I do believe gun safety is an issue to be taught to both young and old. problem is video games these days have immunized kids to violence and such.

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

that is the one thing I would like to see more gun safety laws forcing gun owners to have training and safety lessons on owning a gun since I believe that would do well on reducing accidental shootings.

Accidental shootings have been decreasing for a while, and frankly compared to other accidental injuries/deaths are pretty damned rare. Requiring a class to exercise a constitutional right ends up being an infringement on that right. It is too easy to make the classes expensive, rare, or excessively small, or use other tricks to make the requirement a de facto ban to ownership.

Really BAD idea if you actually think the 2nd Amendment is worth anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

that is the one thing I would like to see more gun safety laws forcing gun owners to have training and safety lessons on owning a gun since I believe that would do well on reducing accidental shootings.

Accidental shootings are rare already. Less would always be nice but there's no way to guarantee that and the govt is limited in the amount of regulation they can impose on a right.

well when I see kids who shoot themselves because their parents were idiots and stupid and ignorant of gun safety I do believe gun safety is an issue to be taught to both young and old. problem is video games these days have immunized kids to violence and such.

And there are several videos on Youtube of LEOs accidentally shooting themselves or others. One in a pawn shop is pretty funny. And these guys have attended training.

 CptJake wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

that is the one thing I would like to see more gun safety laws forcing gun owners to have training and safety lessons on owning a gun since I believe that would do well on reducing accidental shootings.

Accidental shootings have been decreasing for a while, and frankly compared to other accidental injuries/deaths are pretty damned rare. Requiring a class to exercise a constitutional right ends up being an infringement on that right. It is too easy to make the classes expensive, rare, or excessively small, or use other tricks to make the requirement a de facto ban to ownership.

Really BAD idea if you actually think the 2nd Amendment is worth anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

that is the one thing I would like to see more gun safety laws forcing gun owners to have training and safety lessons on owning a gun since I believe that would do well on reducing accidental shootings.

Accidental shootings are rare already. Less would always be nice but there's no way to guarantee that and the govt is limited in the amount of regulation they can impose on a right.

well when I see kids who shoot themselves because their parents were idiots and stupid and ignorant of gun safety I do believe gun safety is an issue to be taught to both young and old. problem is video games these days have immunized kids to violence and such.

And there are several videos on Youtube of LEOs accidentally shooting themselves or others. One in a pawn shop is pretty funny. And these guys have attended training.

so true, its like some people just get stupid in a no stupid zone.

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

that is the one thing I would like to see more gun safety laws forcing gun owners to have training and safety lessons on owning a gun since I believe that would do well on reducing accidental shootings.

Accidental shootings are rare already. Less would always be nice but there's no way to guarantee that and the govt is limited in the amount of regulation they can impose on a right.

well when I see kids who shoot themselves because their parents were idiots and stupid and ignorant of gun safety I do believe gun safety is an issue to be taught to both young and old. problem is video games these days have immunized kids to violence and such.

Those events are terribly tragic but we shouldn't let emotions overrule rationality and the preservation of Liberty. The government can't force people to be good parents it can only punish them when they're proven to be criminally awful parents.

 skyth wrote:
The thing is running away has a higher success rate than exchanging fire...

It does, which is why it's Plan A. When Plan A doesn't or can't work (you know, like I just fething said), there should be a Plan B. Your Plan B is "die." I find that unacceptable.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Thanks for the replies to my earlier point, but it's exactly the point I'm trying to make: your average gun owner, who's had some training, maybe shot a few cans in the back garden, is no substitute for professionals in these types of situation, concealed carry or no concealed carry.

Did you just not read the replies that were actually made to you or something? Your average cop is not particularly well-trained for this sort of thing, either. Or any sort of use of their firearm. It's why the NYPD hit what they were aiming at instead of an innocent bystander only .6% more often, and simply missed completely over 90% of the time. And those weren't club shootouts; most of the time we're talking about shooting at people who weren't shooting back.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Nobody is saying that you can endanger or harm others. US citizens have the right to keep and bear arms and they can exercise that right for whatever reason they want, no justification is needed. That's just a simple fact.

Not in NJ you can't. As I've pointed out.

The bottom line for me is that I would be scared out of my mind in that situation, BUT if I was carrying, you're damn right I would return fire. I'd prefer not to be a fish in a barrel thank you very much, as all those poor people in the night club were on that tragic night.

Seaward wrote:

 skyth wrote:
The thing is running away has a higher success rate than exchanging fire...

It does, which is why it's Plan A. When Plan A doesn't or can't work (you know, like I just fething said), there should be a Plan B. Your Plan B is "die." I find that unacceptable.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Thanks for the replies to my earlier point, but it's exactly the point I'm trying to make: your average gun owner, who's had some training, maybe shot a few cans in the back garden, is no substitute for professionals in these types of situation, concealed carry or no concealed carry.

Did you just not read the replies that were actually made to you or something? Your average cop is not particularly well-trained for this sort of thing, either. Or any sort of use of their firearm. It's why the NYPD hit what they were aiming at instead of an innocent bystander only .6% more often, and simply missed completely over 90% of the time. And those weren't club shootouts; most of the time we're talking about shooting at people who weren't shooting back.

Many dakka gun owners have rightfully made the point that just because some gun owners have done bad things, it doesn't mean that every gun owner in the USA will do bad things.

So just because New York cops are bad shots, it doesn't mean that every American cop is no good with a gun.

The NYPD also has both notoriously low shooting qualifications and training, as well as pistols modified to have monstrously heavy trigger pulls to simulate the old double action revolvers they used decades ago (instead of retraining on the new equipment) which results in further accuracy issues.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 skyth wrote:
The thing is running away has a higher success rate than exchanging fire...

It does, which is why it's Plan A. When Plan A doesn't or can't work (you know, like I just fething said), there should be a Plan B. Your Plan B is "die." I find that unacceptable.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Thanks for the replies to my earlier point, but it's exactly the point I'm trying to make: your average gun owner, who's had some training, maybe shot a few cans in the back garden, is no substitute for professionals in these types of situation, concealed carry or no concealed carry.

Did you just not read the replies that were actually made to you or something? Your average cop is not particularly well-trained for this sort of thing, either. Or any sort of use of their firearm. It's why the NYPD hit what they were aiming at instead of an innocent bystander only .6% more often, and simply missed completely over 90% of the time. And those weren't club shootouts; most of the time we're talking about shooting at people who weren't shooting back.

Many dakka gun owners have rightfully made the point that just because some gun owners have done bad things, it doesn't mean that every gun owner in the USA will do bad things.

So just because New York cops are bad shots, it doesn't mean that every American cop is no good with a gun.

Very true. However it does highlight the fact that it doesn't take much for civilian gun owners to have just as much or more training and practice than the average LEO.

well in Stockton the police hit what they are aiming for, it may take hundreds of thousands of bullets to do it, but they will turn a car into swiss cheese while killing a hostage.:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-stockton-bank-robbery-20150817-story.html

funny thing is I don't blame the cops for that, the bank robbers were driving up and down the streets of Stockton shooting at anything and everything, and even though pictures do not show it a block away from where that happened where the bank robbers were headed was a school, so while the loss of the hostage was tragic, it could have gotten a lot worse.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Very true. However it does highlight the fact that it doesn't take much for civilian gun owners to have just as much or more training and practice than the average LEO.

I know i'm a better shot then some of my friends on the force

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

No.

Our Constitution was written was that these rights were self-evident. Not handed down by the government.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

The populace sent representatives to the constitutional convention where the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in our constitution. The populace has the ability to demand that their current representatives act to change or repeal the admendment. To date they have not so it remains intact. The right exists, it's right there in the constitution. Exercising a right requires no justification because it's a right. You don't have to justify your exercise of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom for illegal searches and seizures, your right to not incriminate yourself in a court of law, etc.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

No.

Our Constitution was written was that these rights were self-evident. Not handed down by the government.

Self-evident why? Because people REASONED and came to the conclusion that these rights were desirable.

Otherwise, prove that the right to free speech is inherent to man, and not a social construct. I'll wait.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

The populace sent representatives to the constitutional convention where the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in our constitution. The populace has the ability to demand that their current representatives act to change or repeal the admendment. To date they have not so it remains intact. The right exists, it's right there in the constitution. Exercising a right requires no justification because it's a right. You don't have to justify your exercise of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom for illegal searches and seizures, your right to not incriminate yourself in a court of law, etc.

No, but it's exceedingly silly to respond to a normative argument with "but it's a right!" as if that'd settle the question.

http://constitution.laws.com/who-wrote-the-constitution

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

No.

Our Constitution was written was that these rights were self-evident. Not handed down by the government.

Self-evident why? Because people REASONED and came to the conclusion that these rights were desirable.

Otherwise, prove that the right to free speech is inherent to man, and not a social construct. I'll wait.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

The populace sent representatives to the constitutional convention where the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in our constitution. The populace has the ability to demand that their current representatives act to change or repeal the admendment. To date they have not so it remains intact. The right exists, it's right there in the constitution. Exercising a right requires no justification because it's a right. You don't have to justify your exercise of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom for illegal searches and seizures, your right to not incriminate yourself in a court of law, etc.

No, but it's exceedingly silly to respond to a normative argument with "but it's a right!" as if that'd settle the question.

We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms because it's right there in the constitution. It's been written right there in black in white for over 200 years. We've literally had it during the entire existence of our country. What are you arguing? You know the right exists, everyone does. You don't need to justify exercising a right that's always been true for all of our rights.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

No.

Our Constitution was written was that these rights were self-evident. Not handed down by the government.

Self-evident why? Because people REASONED and came to the conclusion that these rights were desirable.

Otherwise, prove that the right to free speech is inherent to man, and not a social construct. I'll wait.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

The populace sent representatives to the constitutional convention where the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in our constitution. The populace has the ability to demand that their current representatives act to change or repeal the admendment. To date they have not so it remains intact. The right exists, it's right there in the constitution. Exercising a right requires no justification because it's a right. You don't have to justify your exercise of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom for illegal searches and seizures, your right to not incriminate yourself in a court of law, etc.

No, but it's exceedingly silly to respond to a normative argument with "but it's a right!" as if that'd settle the question.

We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms because it's right there in the constitution. It's been written right there in black in white for over 200 years. We've literally had it during the entire existence of our country. What are you arguing? You know the right exists, everyone does. You don't need to justify exercising a right that's always been true for all of our rights.

Do you not understand what a normative statement is? If someone is arguing how things ought to be (according to them), responding with what is essentially "well, that's not how it is right now" is pointless.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

No.

Our Constitution was written was that these rights were self-evident. Not handed down by the government.

Self-evident why? Because people REASONED and came to the conclusion that these rights were desirable.

Otherwise, prove that the right to free speech is inherent to man, and not a social construct. I'll wait.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

The populace sent representatives to the constitutional convention where the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in our constitution. The populace has the ability to demand that their current representatives act to change or repeal the admendment. To date they have not so it remains intact. The right exists, it's right there in the constitution. Exercising a right requires no justification because it's a right. You don't have to justify your exercise of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom for illegal searches and seizures, your right to not incriminate yourself in a court of law, etc.

No, but it's exceedingly silly to respond to a normative argument with "but it's a right!" as if that'd settle the question.

We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms because it's right there in the constitution. It's been written right there in black in white for over 200 years. We've literally had it during the entire existence of our country. What are you arguing? You know the right exists, everyone does. You don't need to justify exercising a right that's always been true for all of our rights.

Do you not understand what a normative statement is? If someone is arguing how things ought to be (according to them), responding with what is essentially "well, that's not how it is right now" is pointless.

Normative statements are fine but it makes no practical sense to argue for legislative action based on normative statements that ignore reality. If somebody makes a normative statement and advocates for change to make that normative statement be true it's perfectly reasonable to point it that there are actual impediments to that action that need to accounted for.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

No.

Our Constitution was written was that these rights were self-evident. Not handed down by the government.

Self-evident why? Because people REASONED and came to the conclusion that these rights were desirable.

Otherwise, prove that the right to free speech is inherent to man, and not a social construct. I'll wait.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

The populace sent representatives to the constitutional convention where the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in our constitution. The populace has the ability to demand that their current representatives act to change or repeal the admendment. To date they have not so it remains intact. The right exists, it's right there in the constitution. Exercising a right requires no justification because it's a right. You don't have to justify your exercise of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom for illegal searches and seizures, your right to not incriminate yourself in a court of law, etc.

No, but it's exceedingly silly to respond to a normative argument with "but it's a right!" as if that'd settle the question.

We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms because it's right there in the constitution. It's been written right there in black in white for over 200 years. We've literally had it during the entire existence of our country. What are you arguing? You know the right exists, everyone does. You don't need to justify exercising a right that's always been true for all of our rights.

Do you not understand what a normative statement is? If someone is arguing how things ought to be (according to them), responding with what is essentially "well, that's not how it is right now" is pointless.

Normative statements are fine but it makes no practical sense to argue for legislative action based on normative statements that ignore reality. If somebody makes a normative statement and advocates for change to make that normative statement be true it's perfectly reasonable to point it that there are actual impediments to that action that need to accounted for.

"Because I can" is not a reasonable answer to the question "why do you need a gun?".

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

"Because I can" is not a reasonable answer to the question "why do you need a gun?".

because if I need it I will have it. doesn't matter what I'll need it for, but if I have need of it to go hunting, or to defend myself or protect mine or overthrow a dictatorship I will have it and not be wishing I had it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

"Because I can" is not a reasonable answer to the question "why do you need a gun?".

Ya see... that's what's great about living in this country.

... we don't have to give you a reason.

'Merica.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

"Because I can" is not a reasonable answer to the question "why do you need a gun?".

Ya see... that's what's great about living in this country.

... we don't have to give you a reason.

'Merica.

Reason out the window then. Why are we arguing if that's the case? You're literally telling me that you don't need justification for the fundamental laws of your country.

Asterios wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

that is the one thing I would like to see more gun safety laws forcing gun owners to have training and safety lessons on owning a gun since I believe that would do well on reducing accidental shootings.

Accidental shootings are rare already. Less would always be nice but there's no way to guarantee that and the govt is limited in the amount of regulation they can impose on a right.

well when I see kids who shoot themselves because their parents were idiots and stupid and ignorant of gun safety I do believe gun safety is an issue to be taught to both young and old. problem is video games these days have immunized kids to violence and such.

And there are several videos on Youtube of LEOs accidentally shooting themselves or others. One in a pawn shop is pretty funny. And these guys have attended training.

so true, its like some people just get stupid in a no stupid zone.

I'm not sure it's just a case of plain stupidity.

More like the society nowadays, by many means (television, video games, ...), shows plenty of weapons with barely no consequence for the user and/or looking like it's a very easy and casual thing. For example, the movies where you have some focus on the armed hero taking care of his gun cautiously aren't that many. Most of them show the action, the "fun thing" of using a gun.

Like I say, it's treated as a casual thing, so in some people's minds, it became just casual and think that's "it's no big deal". Until the day something bad happens.

It's quite understandable. Training takes time and following security procedures can be seen as boring and not that necessary (especially when you are in a hurry). When it becomes a pure automatism, that's when it becomes even more dangerous because you do it without being really aware. A mistake is fast to happen, but the bullet is faster - and there is no second chance if it hits the bad place.

That's why I think it's important to keep reminding people how dangerous weapons can be, all the time. And maybe showing less "fun things about guns", while more "be careful, guys, weapons can hurt and kill the user and/or his family as well".

That's not trying to remove the right for owning a gun, more like protecting people clearly not ready for having one from themselves...and also better inform the potential users.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

No.

Our Constitution was written was that these rights were self-evident. Not handed down by the government.

Self-evident why? Because people REASONED and came to the conclusion that these rights were desirable.

Otherwise, prove that the right to free speech is inherent to man, and not a social construct. I'll wait.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

If you can't justify why a right exists then you're on thin ice. Rights aren't handed down by some divine mandate, they're agreed upon by the populace.

The populace sent representatives to the constitutional convention where the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in our constitution. The populace has the ability to demand that their current representatives act to change or repeal the admendment. To date they have not so it remains intact. The right exists, it's right there in the constitution. Exercising a right requires no justification because it's a right. You don't have to justify your exercise of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom for illegal searches and seizures, your right to not incriminate yourself in a court of law, etc.

No, but it's exceedingly silly to respond to a normative argument with "but it's a right!" as if that'd settle the question.

We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms because it's right there in the constitution. It's been written right there in black in white for over 200 years. We've literally had it during the entire existence of our country. What are you arguing? You know the right exists, everyone does. You don't need to justify exercising a right that's always been true for all of our rights.

Do you not understand what a normative statement is? If someone is arguing how things ought to be (according to them), responding with what is essentially "well, that's not how it is right now" is pointless.

Normative statements are fine but it makes no practical sense to argue for legislative action based on normative statements that ignore reality. If somebody makes a normative statement and advocates for change to make that normative statement be true it's perfectly reasonable to point it that there are actual impediments to that action that need to accounted for.

"Because I can" is not a reasonable answer to the question "why do you need a gun?".

It's a irrelevant trick question. It's no different than saying why do you need free speech? Why do you need the ability to not incriminate yourself in court? Why do you need freedom of assembly? You don't need justification to speak freely or to assembly where you want or to plead the 5th in court. You don't need others approval to exercise your rights. Why do you think we do? We've never needed to justify exercising any of our constitutional rights.

Why I choose to own a gun has no bearing on my right to own one. I can offer any number of reasons or none at all because there are no right or wrong reasons to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

"Because I can" is not a reasonable answer to the question "why do you need a gun?".

Ya see... that's what's great about living in this country.

... we don't have to give you a reason.

'Merica.

Reason out the window then. Why are we arguing if that's the case? You're literally telling me that you don't need justification for the fundamental laws of your country.

It was important enough to have been included in the federal constitution and seveal state constitutions. There has yet to be enough widespread sentiment agaisnt the right to get it removed from those constitutions. Since we already have it we get to exercise it for any reason we want. Why we got it in the first place is irrelevant to our ability to exercise it now.

To whom do you think we need to jusify our decision to exercise our right to keep and bear arms? The govenment? The government already allows us to do so, we already have their permission. Our fellow citizens? Our fellow citizens have the same rights we do and don't have any authority over us to forbid us from exercising our rights. I already have permission to all of the authorities who hold jurisdiction over me, there's nobody left to whom I need to justify my actions.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

"Because I can" is not a reasonable answer to the question "why do you need a gun?".

Ya see... that's what's great about living in this country.

... we don't have to give you a reason.

'Merica.

Reason out the window then. Why are we arguing if that's the case? You're literally telling me that you don't need justification for the fundamental laws of your country.

I'm literally telling you that I don't need to give *you* or my government any justification to use a fundamental RIGHT in my country.

I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you need to justify why you want to use a law that exists, I'm saying that if we're discussing whether the law ought to be changed or not, "but it's the law!" isn't a valid argument. If you can't justify why you want the law to be a certain way, why bother having a discussion about it?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you need to justify why you want to use a law that exists, I'm saying that if we're discussing whether the law ought to be changed or not, "but it's the law!" isn't a valid argument. If you can't justify why you want the law to be a certain way, why bother having a discussion about it?

if it ain't broken don't fix it, there is nothing wrong with the law, just some of the people in this country.

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you need to justify why you want to use a law that exists, I'm saying that if we're discussing whether the law ought to be changed or not, "but it's the law!" isn't a valid argument. If you can't justify why you want the law to be a certain way, why bother having a discussion about it?

if it ain't broken don't fix it, there is nothing wrong with the law, just some of the people in this country.

Appeal to tradition, that doesn't cut it.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

"Because I can" is not a reasonable answer to the question "why do you need a gun?".

Ya see... that's what's great about living in this country.

... we don't have to give you a reason.

'Merica.

Reason out the window then. Why are we arguing if that's the case? You're literally telling me that you don't need justification for the fundamental laws of your country.

I'm literally telling you that I don't need to give *you* or my government any justification to use a fundamental RIGHT in my country.

I often find that when people ask me why I "need" to own a gun what they really mean is that they don't want to own one and don't understand why I "need" one so they want me to explain myself and try to convince them that they "need" to have one to. Which is a waste of time because of they don't want to own one then they don't have to get one. Nobody has to own a gun but if you're a US citizen who can lawfully own one you're allowed to get one, or two, or three or however many you want. I have no issue with anyone who can legally own a gun having one or choosing not to have one. It's a personal choice, I don't care why they make that choice because any reason is fine. I don't need to convince anyone else to own or not own a gun. We can all enjoy our freedom as we see fit.