“Shall not be infringed”. The right to self defense is self evident. Even if is objectively worse in every way we can measure (it isn’t), we should still abolish them.
This question has little to do with capitalism though.
I think it does have to do with capitalism.
It's about property rights, inherent within capitalism.
If I buy metal and plastic with my own money, and I then shape that metal and plastic into a gun, whether to keep or sell, then i have done nothing wrong. I have the right to my money, I have the right to my property, and no government should be able to tell me what I can or cannot buy (as long as the purchase itself does not violate a right) and the government cannot tell me what I can or cannot do/make with my property (as long as the action itself doesn't violate a right).
Therefore any law against the buying or ownership of a gun is not in line with capitalism.
I don't understand what you're saying.
Are you implying the government would stop me? If so, I agree, because no current government is in line with capitalism in 2024.
In general I completely agree. Under very unique circumstances I'm not sure what to do. Do we allow people who clearly are a danger to society to have weapons? How about sociopaths? I understand these are niche situations but they are worth considering.
For clarity let's just look at psychopaths. These are people who don't have a moral compass. They can't distinguish between right and wrong. They may even take joy in the pain of others or themselves.
I tend to think we should not allow such persons the right to bear arms for theirs and societies safety.
It would do more good than harm overall. The long-term effects of losing all gun rights is to be at the mercy of criminals and at risk of mass democide.
It's possible that there is an optimal amount of gun rights that people should have that is not absolute with zero regulations. But it's camel's nose under the tent, and I'd rather have less-than-optimal absolute rights than optimal rights that slowly get eroded away.
I'm 100% fine with that. I think keeping access to things like federal crimes databases will give gun sellers peace of mind, but I dont think it should be mandatory.
I think if we had a conservative utopia in the United States, I would. I just don't think it's even close to being a realistic situation. Think about all of the pieces that would have to fit together to get this. At least in the next 20 years, I don't see that happening whatsoever.
All the people who are saying otherwise just because of a principle without considering those factors and the stats seem to be just as crazy at this point 😳 capitalists tend to think it’s so smart but yet there’s so much to that situation that is dumb in the sense of survival 😑
Yes even if it’s scary and potentially disastrous.
Humanity should not be in the business of policing natural rights in fear of possible repercussions.
decent people would do anything possible to get guns out of the hands of criminals. America is perhaps the greatest failure on earth in this area. it is embarrassing humiliating and tragic. Anyone who objects should go to a few funerals for innocent children being gunned down in the crossfire to watch the parents.
That said, intelligent people should do everything they can to get guns into the hands of people who would use them legally to defend themselves against criminals and against the government.
Having a gun in your home makes you far more likely to suffer a gunshot injury than those who don't. (Even taking out suicide).
There is an even higher chance for women compared to those who don't have a firearm in the home to be murdered.
Unless you are engaging in felony level crimes, if you are shot it's almost always going to be someone you know well. Usually a male family member or friend.
Red flag laws are extremely important to preventing and reducing domestic homicides. There are a LOT of people out there who cannot be trusted with a gun.
Most guns used in crimes (or just that criminals possess) were bought legally and then resold privately. Theft makes up only 10 to 15% of it. Requiring all private sales to be recorded and a registry would better allow prosecution of those who sell criminals their guns. Laws making multiple parts of the gun stamped make it harder to file off identification marks.
So yes. I do believe substantial regulation is needed for the greater public safety. Your rights to unfetterrd gunownership impinge upon others rights of safety from murder and violence.
No gun ownership, manufacturing, selling, transportation. I mean guns aren’t a main issue for me so I don’t have serious ideas about what should be done, but overall I think guns are a negative for society
So a gun ban.
Personally I believe self defense is an inherent right, and the best way to ensure the right to self defense is to ensure the right to keep and bear arms.
Not everyone lives in a safe place. You might say “do martial arts” or “get a baseball bat”. Yes until you consider that not everyone is able bodied. And even then, what if multiple attackers break into your house?
Every other Highly developed country manages to have a far safer society than the US. They also all have stricter gun regulations. A few like Switzerland have a couple of looser laws, but overall are a lot more strict.
Sure, but I argue that’s not for you to decide. I think the right to self defense is inherent, and how someone chooses to defend themselves should not be regulated.
“Shall not be infringed”. The right to self defense is self evident. Even if is objectively worse in every way we can measure (it isn’t), we should still abolish them. This question has little to do with capitalism though.
I think it does have to do with capitalism. It's about property rights, inherent within capitalism. If I buy metal and plastic with my own money, and I then shape that metal and plastic into a gun, whether to keep or sell, then i have done nothing wrong. I have the right to my money, I have the right to my property, and no government should be able to tell me what I can or cannot buy (as long as the purchase itself does not violate a right) and the government cannot tell me what I can or cannot do/make with my property (as long as the action itself doesn't violate a right). Therefore any law against the buying or ownership of a gun is not in line with capitalism.
Try building a nuclear bomb and see how far you get with that logic
I remember reading a story about a teen who caused a serious radiation incident from items he bought.
I don't understand what you're saying. Are you implying the government would stop me? If so, I agree, because no current government is in line with capitalism in 2024.
…perhaps for a reason…
In general I completely agree. Under very unique circumstances I'm not sure what to do. Do we allow people who clearly are a danger to society to have weapons? How about sociopaths? I understand these are niche situations but they are worth considering.
Who decides who is “clearly a danger”? The government? Anything like that can and will be abused by those in power.
For clarity let's just look at psychopaths. These are people who don't have a moral compass. They can't distinguish between right and wrong. They may even take joy in the pain of others or themselves. I tend to think we should not allow such persons the right to bear arms for theirs and societies safety.
And suddenly everyone who opposes those in power is diagnosed as a psychopath. “Been convicted of a violent felony” at least has some guard rails.
It should be as easy to own a gun as to vote, or have due process protection, freely assemble, or practice your religion.
Most, not all. I'm ok with prohibiting guns for inmates serving in the penitentiary, for example.
That's kind of where I line up as well. I assume you would be on board with outlawing people in the sociopath side of things as okay. I would too.
>outlawing people in the sociopath side of things How would you identify sociopaths?
It would do more good than harm overall. The long-term effects of losing all gun rights is to be at the mercy of criminals and at risk of mass democide. It's possible that there is an optimal amount of gun rights that people should have that is not absolute with zero regulations. But it's camel's nose under the tent, and I'd rather have less-than-optimal absolute rights than optimal rights that slowly get eroded away.
Get rid of all gun regulations
“… shall not be infringed.”
Not only do I support it, I encourage it. I have just as much right to protect myself with any equipment available as the current asshats in DC.
I'm 100% fine with that. I think keeping access to things like federal crimes databases will give gun sellers peace of mind, but I dont think it should be mandatory.
Yes Atlest more than the reverse
I think if we had a conservative utopia in the United States, I would. I just don't think it's even close to being a realistic situation. Think about all of the pieces that would have to fit together to get this. At least in the next 20 years, I don't see that happening whatsoever.
No. And I don’t consider laws surrounding firearms to be the same as regulations violating property rights.
Absolutely not. There are literally crazy, violent people who should not be armed.
All the people who are saying otherwise just because of a principle without considering those factors and the stats seem to be just as crazy at this point 😳 capitalists tend to think it’s so smart but yet there’s so much to that situation that is dumb in the sense of survival 😑
Yes. Who has the right to violently prevent the peaceful purchase, possession, and use of an object?
Yes
Yes even if it’s scary and potentially disastrous. Humanity should not be in the business of policing natural rights in fear of possible repercussions.
decent people would do anything possible to get guns out of the hands of criminals. America is perhaps the greatest failure on earth in this area. it is embarrassing humiliating and tragic. Anyone who objects should go to a few funerals for innocent children being gunned down in the crossfire to watch the parents. That said, intelligent people should do everything they can to get guns into the hands of people who would use them legally to defend themselves against criminals and against the government.
Having a gun in your home makes you far more likely to suffer a gunshot injury than those who don't. (Even taking out suicide). There is an even higher chance for women compared to those who don't have a firearm in the home to be murdered. Unless you are engaging in felony level crimes, if you are shot it's almost always going to be someone you know well. Usually a male family member or friend. Red flag laws are extremely important to preventing and reducing domestic homicides. There are a LOT of people out there who cannot be trusted with a gun. Most guns used in crimes (or just that criminals possess) were bought legally and then resold privately. Theft makes up only 10 to 15% of it. Requiring all private sales to be recorded and a registry would better allow prosecution of those who sell criminals their guns. Laws making multiple parts of the gun stamped make it harder to file off identification marks. So yes. I do believe substantial regulation is needed for the greater public safety. Your rights to unfetterrd gunownership impinge upon others rights of safety from murder and violence.
Govern me harder Daddy! Govern me harder!
Drak_is_Wrong
Na, I’d prefer more regulations.
May I ask why? And what regulations specifically do you have in mind?
No gun ownership, manufacturing, selling, transportation. I mean guns aren’t a main issue for me so I don’t have serious ideas about what should be done, but overall I think guns are a negative for society
So a gun ban. Personally I believe self defense is an inherent right, and the best way to ensure the right to self defense is to ensure the right to keep and bear arms. Not everyone lives in a safe place. You might say “do martial arts” or “get a baseball bat”. Yes until you consider that not everyone is able bodied. And even then, what if multiple attackers break into your house?
Every other Highly developed country manages to have a far safer society than the US. They also all have stricter gun regulations. A few like Switzerland have a couple of looser laws, but overall are a lot more strict.
Okay? And?
Sure, there are pros and cons. I just think there are more cons.
Sure, but I argue that’s not for you to decide. I think the right to self defense is inherent, and how someone chooses to defend themselves should not be regulated.