Gun Crime

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
That means we should subsidize tanks, military aircraft, and maybe even nuclear weapons so that even middle class citizens can exercise their right to private property.

Ah, so you mean that even middle class citizens should be allowed to enlist in the armed forces, where they will have access to government subsidized (i.e. purchased) tanks, planes, nuclear aircraft carriers, and ICBM's (depending on the abilities and predilections of the enlistee). I agree with you completely.

[Wraith]

--"There are other programs that help different classes of people to practice rights, such welfare programs and affirmative action."

Strictly speaking, those programs are also unconstitutional. They're also fundamentally property rights violations. Any government that stuck faithfully to the concept of rights would have neither these programs nor the gun-controls we've been talking about.

Edit for crossposting:

--"I have never suggested causation in the first place, that's a strawman."

You certainly tried to imply it, however jokingly.

--"It seems to be, with those figures, in comparison to that of the US, a casual relation between availability of guns and the number of violent crimes (per capita)."

How can you possibly draw that conclusion without having the violent crimes (per capita) numbers for either location? You only provided HK numbers for some unspecified gun crimes.

Wraith
"Governments change...the lies stay the same."
-- James Bond

[MrFun]

Originally posted by loinburger


Ah, so you mean that even middle class citizens should be allowed to enlist in the armed forces, where they will have access to government subsidized (i.e. purchased) tanks, planes, nuclear aircraft carriers, and ICBM's (depending on the abilities and predilections of the enlistee). I agree with you completely.

Nope -- you misunderstand me again.

Citizens have the right to private property (small firearms) without ever enlisting in the military service.

So, citizens should not be required to enlist in the military service simply to pratice their right to own tanks, military aircraft, and so forth. That right is available to citizens, regardless whether they serve in the military.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrFun
Subsidizing tanks, military aircraft and artillery for middle class citizens would make sense in this context. Or not??

Since we don't have the government handing out yachts to the general populace, I don't think that the government would sudenly start handing out military grade weapons to them either.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Citizens have the right to private property (small firearms) without ever enlisting in the military service.

Absolutely. Citizens ought to be allowed to purchase whatever the hell kind of weapon they want with the money that they earn.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by loinburger


Ah, so you mean that even middle class citizens should be allowed to enlist in the armed forces, where they will have access to government subsidized (i.e. purchased) tanks, planes, nuclear aircraft carriers, and ICBM's (depending on the abilities and predilections of the enlistee). I agree with you completely.

Thats right. I can hear the 2004 campaigning now. "Jobs, Healthcare, and M60 tanks for all. I wanna fight for you ; so you can fight for yourself"

Hey, I wouldnt put it past them.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by loinburger


Absolutely. Citizens ought to be allowed to purchase whatever the hell kind of weapon they want with the money that they earn.

Did you miss my point again??

It does not matter whether they enlist in the military service or not with owning small firearms, so the same accesibility level should apply with military weapons and hardware within the rationale of private property rights.

And DinoDoc, yachts are private property, yet because they do not contribute to the defense of our nation within the realm of "well regulated militia", they would not be included.

They are purely recreational purpose, so no class really suffers from deprivation of yachts.

[David Floyd]

The purpose would be so that there is less of an inequality between the upper class and middle class in exercising their right to bear arms.

What the ****? Since when are people entitled to anything of the kind? People have the RIGHT to bear arms,but they are not necessarily ENTITLED to arms - only if they can afford them, obviously. We're running into the confusion between rights and entitlements again

It does not matter whether they enlist in the military service or not with owning small firearms, so the same accesibility level should apply with military weapons and hardware within the rationale of private property rights.

So the government should subsidize Lexus's, home entertainment centers, and home security systems now??

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Wraith
Look, I don't care what your opinion is, US law was based on the concept of natural rights. US legal arguments cannot assume a social original, like you seem to want.

Why are we assuming this is a legal argument, or rather, exclusively a legal argument?

Originally posted by Wraith
--"This right could not have existed before the invention of firearms."

UR, why are you being like this? You know this is a fallacious argument. Firearms are just another form of property, and property rights are pretty fundamental.

That seems to be a sweeping generation. I posit that firearms are fundamentally different from other things you can own because they are expressedly designed to kill. There is no other purpose to firearms (a class of weapons) than to kill.

Another point is what constitutes "properties" is something that's delineated by laws. Again, there is no natural foundation of private properties we can fall back on. What that means is what can be and what cannot be property is not [1] engraved in stone [2] necessarily objective or even consistent. We need to look at each individual thing in turn. Why firearms is a form of property in the US but not cannabis? [I am not arguing that cannabis should be legalised here ] This just shows the laws are arbitrary.

[David Floyd]

They are purely recreational purpose, so no class really suffers from deprivation of yachts.

When did I ever make a distinction between self-defense and recreation in terms of gun ownership? Guns are private property like anything else - if you can't afford one, that's just as much tough **** as it is if you can't afford a car with all the safety upgrades.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by David Floyd


So the government should subsidize Lexus's, home entertainment centers, and home security systems now??

The tax money you would horde to do that would be so much that the individual couldnt afford it anyway

Oh I love Basketcase economics.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd

So the government should subsidize Lexus's, home entertainment centers, and home security systems now??

Read the post that I put just before yours -- it explains why recreational items cannot be rightfully subsidized.

[David Floyd]

And DinoDoc, yachts are private property, yet because they do not contribute to the defense of our nation within the realm of "well regulated militia", they would not be included.

Did you know that the primary naval vessels of Sri Lanka are yachts

In any case, this is irrelevant, because the government has no right to tax me to pay for someone else's private property.

[Wraith]

--"Why are we assuming this is a legal argument, or rather, exclusively a legal argument?"

This thread, unless I've got it totally confused with the other, is about how the US should get rid of guns, yes? It would require the argument to be primarily relevant to US law.

--"I posit that firearms are fundamentally different from other things you can own because they are expressedly designed to kill."

So are swords and poisons, among other things. So what?

--"Again, there is no natural foundation of private properties we can fall back on"

There is, but you don't agree with it. I really don't want to head the argument off in this direction right now.

--"This just shows the laws are arbitrary"

Yes, they are arbitrary. The ones banning cannibis are unconstitutional and should be struck from the books. It's another encroachment area.

Anyway, I need to sleep. I'll continue in the morning.

Wraith
"A good man does not obey the laws too well."
-- Henry David Thoreau

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Did you miss my point again??

I've been trying to give your posts a reasonable interpretation, but gosh darn it, you just won't let me.

It does not matter whether they enlist in the military service or not with owning small firearms, so the same accesibility level should apply with military weapons and hardware within the rationale of private property rights.

Yes? Isn't this what I've been saying? The government doesn't subsidize small arms, so why should the government subsidize military grade weapons? Last I checked, people who aren't in the army have to buy their small arms with their own money.

And DinoDoc, yachts are private property, yet because they do not contribute to the defense of our nation within the realm of "well regulated militia", they would not be included.

A "militia" is not subsidized by the government. That's what the "standing army" is there for. If you want to use a nuclear aircraft carrier but don't want to pay for one, then join the standing army. Otherwise, win the lottery (a few hundred times).