Scalia is a piece of crap.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Spiffor, why do you consider the 2nd to be an anachronism?

It's now ineffective against both dangers it was supposed to defend from:
- natives
- possibly oppressive government (as Imran said)

Nowadays, the debate is generally revolves about
- crime (and again, the effectivity of individual vigilantism dwindled as society became urbanized, and as police became more effective)

- "It's a basic freedom protected by the constitution".
Well, my contention is that, if gun ownership had been based on common law rather than on the constitution, it would have evolved as the same pace as society. And pretty much nobody but gun freaks would see it as a basic freedom today, like in most other places in the west.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, my contention is that, if gun ownership had been based on common law rather than on the constitution, it would have evolved as the same pace as society. And pretty much nobody but gun freaks would see it as a basic freedom today, like in most other places in the west.

And no one but Jesus freaks see religion as a basic freedom today.

[Kuciwalker]

Are you trying to make some sort of point?

[Alinestra Covelia]

What sort of vice president do you think Scalia would be?

[Wezil]

I don't like the name. I'm not anti-italian or anything, it just creates subconscious connections with vampires for some reason.

Or maybe it's just me.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Why? What % of the population today would support Jim Crow? Not even majorities in the states that had it would support it today. The amendment process was used to end both slavery and segregation, it was the failure of the Feds to fully enforce the latter that allowed Jim Crow.

And you think Brown v Board of Education had nothing to do with that? If segregation was still legal, a lot of folks would still support it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you trying to make some sort of point?

The point is pretty simple.

1. It doesn't matter who chooses to exercise a right. It's completely irrelevant to whether it is a natural right or not.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

It's now ineffective against both dangers it was supposed to defend from:
- natives
- possibly oppressive government (as Imran said)

Nowadays, the debate is generally revolves about
- crime (and again, the effectivity of individual vigilantism dwindled as society became urbanized, and as police became more effective)

- "It's a basic freedom protected by the constitution".
Well, my contention is that, if gun ownership had been based on common law rather than on the constitution, it would have evolved as the same pace as society. And pretty much nobody but gun freaks would see it as a basic freedom today, like in most other places in the west.

Why should the right to own anything be regulated by the government? People should be held accountable for their actions...not babysitted.

My contention is that you have a basic right to own whatever you wish to. If that causes a negative effect on society, then that is where the government gets involved. The simple act of owning a gun does no harm to anyone...it is the using it improperly that has negative effects. Therefore the government should only become involved when the use of that item infringes on someone elses rights.

The argument that the government can determine what are basic freedoms and what are not is frightening. The framers of the constitution saw this in enumerating the federal powers specifically and reserving the rest to the States. In the case of gun ownership, the first Congress felt it important enough to specify that right in an amendment to the Constitution. They did so to ensure that this type of thinking did not over rule the principles of freedom that this country was founded on.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


And you think Brown v Board of Education had nothing to do with that? If segregation was still legal, a lot of folks would still support it.

The legality of an item will not sway some people from supporting or not supporting a thing.

Interestingly enough, I have found much more support for segregation among blacks than whites in Tennessee. The main issue is that blacks feel that enforced desegregation eroded their neighborhoods and lessened the bonds of community that they felt.

I have always been a supporter of desegregation, but the black community itself does have some interesting counter arguments.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by PLATO
Why should the right to own anything be regulated by the government? People should be held accountable for their actions...not babysitted.

My contention is that you have a basic right to own whatever you wish to. If that causes a negative effect on society, then that is where the government gets involved. The simple act of owning a gun does no harm to anyone...it is the using it improperly that has negative effects. Therefore the government should only become involved when the use of that item infringes on someone elses rights.

Biological weapons, chemical weapons, and nukes for all!

(Obviously there have to be some limits. Right?)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The point is pretty simple.

1. It doesn't matter who chooses to exercise a right. It's completely irrelevant to whether it is a natural right or not.

So is the counter: There are no natural rights, only those that society wishes to bestow.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO
Why should the right to own anything be regulated by the government? People should be held accountable for their actions...not babysitted.

What you're saying is an interesting contention, but one I don't see so much associated with gun ownership specifically.

In you country, just like in any other, you have plenty of regulations about what you can own and can't. I may be wrong as I don't know all subtleties of US laws, but I understand you can't own drugs, you can't own military-grade weapons, there was a time (and a constitutional amendment to that effect) where you couldn't own alcohol etc.

Now, a libertarian like Berz will tell me anybody should have the right to own those things. But I don't think it extends to all supporters of gun ownership

[Ben Kenobi]

So is the counter: There are no natural rights, only those that society wishes to bestow.

That's a silly notion.

By that reasoning, how could we conclude that the Jim Crow regulations were wrong? The society in the South refused to bestow equal rights to black people.

If there are no natural rights, then what they did was perfectly legitimate.

[Wezil]

Who defines what a natural right is?

[Ben Kenobi]

They are self evident.