Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part III Covfefe

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,961
Neither is owning a gun.
In the US it is.

Does this mean it is absolute? No, just like every other rights.

Rights can be limited when they conflict with other rights. There certainly are people who shouldn't own guns. Public school teachers, the media who couldn't be bothered to research the basic differences between guns, people with criminal convictions etc.

If the US simply followed a gun ownership model based on competency where you are required to be competent in order to own a gun, it would solve a large amount of the misfirings/accidental shootings.

All having gun rights does is shifts the burden from: why should someone be allowed to have a gun (like in South Africa with its high amount of violent crime and a police minister who wants to remove self defense as a reason to owning a gun) to "why shouldn't someone have a gun".
 
Last edited:

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
35,265
In the US it is.

Does this mean it is absolute? No, just like every other rights.
Funny that owning a gun would be a more unrestricted right than driving. Personally I think the 2A is fundamentally misguided; the basic scenario it tries to protect is unrelated to reality or to common use. That's the point I was trying to make that pitbull refused to answer.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,204
Maybe you didn't expound enough on your theory, but "bad things happening or potentially happening" is the reason why we have laws in the first place.

Take, drunk driving. Almost universally accepted as wrong and bad. But only "potentially" will a drunk driver a crash, and only "potentially" will that crash involve another car, and only "potentially" will another person get injured or die.

Yet the general public are denied the "right" to drive drunk.
I'm afraid your analogy doesn't seem to fit. Driving drunk is severe negligence and is not passive especially on shared infrastructure/property. That in itself does not abide by the principle of non-aggression in my view. Thus the law in this regard seems justified.

Owning a gun for self-defense is passive in my view, as is practicing self-defense itself.

Happy to debate further if you like, not trying to be difficult or anything.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,204
How do you feel about people who take their gun to the pub, and have a few beers?
As soon as they handle the gun under influence they would be in violation in my view. Even a sober gun owner needs to practice discretion when handling their firearm.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,961
Funny that owning a gun would be a more unrestricted right than driving.
Driving kills far more people than gun violence, so there is that...

Personally I think the 2A is fundamentally misguided; the basic scenario it tries to protect is unrelated to reality or to common use. That's the point I was trying to make that pitbull refused to answer.
I don't think so.
Hugo Chavez's government says the ultimate aim is to disarm all civilians, but his opponents say the police and government may not have the capacity or the will to enforce the new law.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-18288430

Why would a government want to disarm people?
The answer:
In a report, it cites "shocking" accounts of young men being killed during operations, often in poor districts, over the past three years.

The UN's human rights chief said no-one was being held to account, suggesting the rule of law was "virtually absent".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-44575599

To give a South African context, do you think the Nats would have been able to do a fraction of the atrocities that they did if black people had firearms. The answer is no.

Does this mean that every tom-dick and harry should be given a gun. No. But taking away the means of self defence is a very easy first step for a totalitarian government.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,961
How do you feel about people who take their gun to the pub, and have a few beers?
Not sure of the law in the US, but in South Africa you would loose your firearm licence in a heartbeat. Which is the correct thing IMO as you are not in a position to control that weapon.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
35,265
Driving kills far more people than gun violence, so there is that...I don't think so.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-18288430

Why would a government want to disarm people?
The answer:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-44575599

To give a South African context, do you think the Nats would have been able to do a fraction of the atrocities that they did if black people had firearms. The answer is no.

Does this mean that every tom-dick and harry should be given a gun. No. But taking away the means of self defence is a very easy first step for a totalitarian government.
So here's the question I put earlier: if Trump ordered the police to shoot antifa protestors, should they be allowed to shoot back?
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,204
I thought you guys believed in "The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon".

No? Maybe I'm mistaking you for some other right wing idiot.
A road is shared space/infrastructure. It may be a very interesting debate but I would initially say public/shared property warrants consensus on their use. I think it is anybody's right to own a car as property, sure, but using it in a public space is another matter that warrants agreements on competency and collaboration.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,961
So here's the question I put earlier: if Trump ordered the police to shoot antifa protestors, should they be allowed to shoot back?
1) To be nit-picky, Trump doesn't have executive control over the police. That would be a state government.
2) The reason why the shooting should be ordered is pretty important. But, stating they should be allowed to shoot back is kinda a moot point given that most people don't give a rat's as$ about the law if they are being attacked.
What is the government going to do? Shoot them if they shoot back whilst they are shooting at them?

A road is shared space/infrastructure. It may be a very interesting debate but I would initially say public/shared property warrants consensus on their use. I think it is anybody's right to own a car as property, sure, but using it in a public space is another matter that warrants agreements on competency and collaboration.
Therefore to use a gun in a public space requires competence/licences since its misuse can severely hurt the public.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,204
So here's the question I put earlier: if Trump ordered the police to shoot antifa protestors, should they be allowed to shoot back?
Depends on who the active aggressors are. If the police/army are defending someone or their property (Their jobs), or their own lives (Their right) and shooting is considered equal force then no, the protesters are not morally sound in shooting back in my view. But just indiscriminately shooting any protesters is equally indefensible no matter where the order comes from, in that case they are within their rights to exercise self-defense.
 
Last edited:

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,204
It's their right, I have a choice to sit there and drink with him, or leave the establishment and go somewhere else... Weird question to ask...
Haha my initial reaction was going to be I would join them as I don't own a gun and hope they protect me from a mob outside or something :p
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,961
K, so the army then?
I prematurely pressed enter.

Check my post.

2) The reason why the shooting should be ordered is pretty important. But, stating they should be allowed to shoot back is kinda a moot point given that most people don't give a rat's as$ about the law if they are being attacked.

What is the government going to do? Shoot them if they shoot back whilst they are shooting at them?
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
35,265
I prematurely pressed enter.

Check my post.
:)

2) The reason why the shooting should be ordered is pretty important. But, stating they should be allowed to shoot back is kinda a moot point given that most people don't give a rat's as$ about the law if they are being attacked.
What is the government going to do? Shoot them if they shoot back whilst they are shooting at them?
So what good does it do to have laws to protect rights if those rights go out the window when the rubber hits the road? That's the point here. In a real-life scenario, if a militia was opposed to Trump's government and was armed, the army wouldn't hesitate for one second to use lethal force against them and the militia wouldn't have a chance in hell.

And those on the side of the government would be shooting right alongside with them. They're the same ones yelling about antifa being fascists and terrorists, after all. All you're doing with the 2a is arming the citizens for a civil war, which has an inevitable outcome.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,204
:)



So what good does it do to have laws to protect rights if those rights go out the window when the rubber hits the road? That's the point here. In a real-life scenario, if a militia was opposed to Trump's government and was armed, the army wouldn't hesitate for one second to use lethal force against them and the militia wouldn't have a chance in hell.

And those on the side of the government would be shooting right alongside with them. They're the same ones yelling about antifa being fascists and terrorists, after all. All you're doing with the 2a is arming the citizens for a civil war, which has an inevitable outcome.
They have rules of engagement I believe. This would be a human rights violation of note granted if said militia was not the aggressor. I suspect (Just a gut feel) many individualists in America also align with trump supporters to a large extent, but would turn on Trump the second this happened - if they're being consistent with their principles.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,961
:)



So what good does it do to have laws to protect rights if those rights go out the window when the rubber hits the road? That's the point here. In a real-life scenario, if a militia was opposed to Trump's government and was armed, the army wouldn't hesitate for one second to use lethal force against them and the militia wouldn't have a chance in hell.
.
If all those protestors were armed, the army wouldn't be as happy to pull the trigger firstly.

Secondly, if you are thinking a serious resistance, it wouldn't be a bunch of people in an open area waiting for the army to come and mow them down, so your argument is a bit of a strawman if you think that people would logically do this in said scenario.

Thirdly, by definition, the army of a country has to be smaller than its civilian population in order for a totalitarian government to function. If it were not, then most citizens would have guns anyway. Which means that an armed civilian population can always hurt an army.

Fourthly, totalitarian situations happen when governments kick your door down and take you away to prison. Do you think that would be easier or more difficult for the government when most houses have a gun in them.

Fifty, controlling a civilian population that has guns would be a nightmare for the army. You just have to look at what happened in Iraq, and they didn't even have the right to guns before the US invasion. The US wiped out the military but couldn't remove the militia.

So no, you are incorrect.
 
Top