Forum Settings
« Previous 0 Next »
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you Lefties

#1 Jan 09 2013 at 9:00 PM Rating: Decent
35,209 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
No. I'm arguing that we should use a criteria other than "you're only law abiding until you break the law" when deciding whether to regulate something.

Great. Let's stop discussing the other useless bullsh*t and hear your criteria. I'm so glad you have some.

The criteria should be based on whether the combination of positives and negatives of the thing itself, compared to the importance of any rights involved, justify limiting said rights via the form of the proposed regulation. We should consider all aspects of the thing within the context of said proposed regulation. Is that a sufficiently broad explanation of criteria to justify regulation within our system of government? I would hope there would be no disagreement in principle here.

With specific regard to firearms, we need to look at the actual effect a given proposal would have, and compare it honestly to the costs and rights involved. So for example, we might decide that banning private ownership of fully automatic weapons is justified because their use in the hands of private citizens would represent a significant risk to public safety and there are sufficient non-fully-automatic weapons to meet the requirements of the 2nd amendment and any positive uses of firearms we might think of within society. We might decide, however, that a total ban on handguns is not justified because there is not sufficient evidence to show that their harm when used in crime is greater on total than their use when defending against crime. Additionally we might determine that outlawing an entire class of weapons like handguns places an undo restriction on the 2nd amendment.

My issue is primarily with the justifications being used for various proposed regulations with regard to firearms. They seem to be less based on an assessment of facts and more on emotional reactions. Gun types get proposed to be banned, not because they're more dangerous or less necessary to fulfill the 2nd amendment right, but purely because they're more scary, or they just happen to be the guns that some gun-control group keep mentioning every time the subject of gun control comes up. IMO, those are incredibly poor reasons to base regulation on.

I agree entirely. Let's stop discussing Bullsh*t. So let's hear a non Bullshi*t argument in support of a proposed piece of gun regulation. Not just broad (and meaningless) statements like "assault weapons aren't necessary for hunting", but an actual proposed set of restrictions and a justification for said restriction which meets the criteria I outlined. I want to hear how the proposed restrictions would affect both criminal uses of guns and legal uses of guns, and how those affects are both positive *and* in accordance with the 2nd amendment rights. When writing said proposal remember that rights should only be infringed if there's a significant and provable gain to be had. Preferably a gain which is itself a right (like life, property, etc). Anything even remotely close to an even choice or trade off should never be done if it involves infringing a right.

Fair enough?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 0 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help


Recent Visitors: 8 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (8)