6 ms·

It's pretty simple-- As an American, I have a right to the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't want to give up any rights I don't have to. That

• JoeAltmaier 14y ago
  But I DO have to give up the right to travel without being strip-searched. A nation of paradoxes.
  • deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  • slouch 14y ago
    (on a federally regulated airplane)
    • JoeAltmaier 14y ago
      Which is, almost all of them?
  • spydum 14y ago
    On a commercial airliner.. To my knowledge private planes don't have crazy restrictions or invasive searches. Indeed, you don't have to fly at all.
    • JoeAltmaier 14y ago
      And you don't have to go outside, so no need for a carry permit. Its all about rights - does liberty include travel on public conveyance? Most of us would think Yes.
    • ceejayoz 14y ago
      > On a commercial airliner.. To my knowledge private planes don't have crazy restrictions or invasive searches. Which is fairly silly, considering it shouldn't be hard for Saudi billionaires to charter a 767.
    • tibbon 14y ago
      The Pro-Gun group however pushes for the right to carry weapons on private property as well (stores, bars, schools, etc)
      • nitrogen 14y ago
        Those are still public places (if by "school" you mean "university"), even if they are privately owned. Also, with a sufficiently rigorous check required to get a concealed carry permit, what is there to worry about?
  • bmelton 14y ago
    Just because the 4th amendment isn't being upheld to a standard that it ought to be is no reason to endorse the trampling of other civil liberties.
  • damoncali 14y ago
    I like to think that this is a state of temporary insanity for our nation. One day, I pray, we will all be able to look back and laugh about the days when we had to take our shoes off at the airport like we do at those duck and cover PSAs.
• 89vision 14y ago
  Your freedom to buy and carry a gun infringes on my right to feel safe in public
  • monochromatic 14y ago
    Attorney here, and the "right to feel safe in public" is one I am not aware of.
    • tome 14y ago
      And for many attorneys in safe, democratic, non-tyrannical Western countries, the "right to bear arms" is not one they are aware of.
      • monochromatic 14y ago
        I won't say that banning guns leads to tyranny in absolutely every instance, but it sure makes it easier.
        • tome 14y ago
          I don't think anyone here will disagree with you on that point, but many will say they don't believe the trade-off is worth it.
          • monochromatic 14y ago
            I dunno what to say to that, other than "wow." That is just a shocking amount of honesty.
            • tome 14y ago
              Are you serious? You really think that the UK, France, Canada, Australia, Sweden etc. etc. are at such a risk of tyranny from their governments that they should expose their children to more random shootings to reduce the risk?
• snitko 14y ago
  I think this is the part a lot of people fail to understand. The mere existence of police that is supposed to protect people doesn't mean everyone in the society agrees to transfer all of those functions to it. Assuming that is pure ignorance. It still gets pretty hilarious when you ask to see your signature under this mythical social contract everyone supposedly signed.
  • knowtheory 14y ago
    And the failure of others to recognize that they live in a society and that their actions have an effect on others is just as obnoxious. You may be happy to take your chances and own and carry a firearm, but why should I, or any other bystander, have to take your chances?
    • snitko 14y ago
      Same logic can be applied to your argument. Why should I take your chances and rely on the police instead of myself to be able to protect me? Convince me (rather than order me) I would be better off without it - and I could voluntarily change my mind.
      • knowtheory 14y ago
        No, not really. My problem is having a massive untrained population of gun owners. If I could have a reasonable certainty that if you owned a gun, you were trained to use it safely, were required to store your firearms safely, and were responsible/liable if your firearm was lost or stolen, I would be perfectly happy for you to own a gun. But this discussion invariably comes down to "gun-rights" folks asserting that any abridgment or checks of their right to own a gun is equivalent to tyranny that would justify overthrowing the government. It's ridiculous. I'm not against gun ownership, i'm against unsafe gun ownership.
        • snitko 14y ago
          Then government, given its track record of being responsible, being effective and not abusing power should be the last organization for you to turn to for enforcing responsible gun ownership.
• bediger4000 14y ago
  As another American, I don't think that's quite it, as we (Americans) have essentially given up some of your other rights: we don't really have a right to be secure against arbitrary search and seizure any more, and we don't have much of a right to due process any more. We're shaving our freedom of speech thinner too. So: why is the 4th Amendment right to keep and bear arms defended so zealously, and interpreted so liberally, when the wording around other rights, which are quite clear and simple, is interpreted in a non-obvious, often seemingly irrational manner so as to prevent people from exercizing those rights?
  • damoncali 14y ago
    Because power, as Mao said, comes from the barrel of a gun. Without the 2nd, the other amendments may as well be suggestions.
  • noahc 14y ago
    2nd Amendment, actually. I agree on everything else.
  • zaphar 14y ago
    Perhaps because the 2nd amendment is their last defense against the erosion of those other rights completely. See: American Revolutionary War
    • bediger4000 14y ago
      Right, but "last defense" shouldn't constitute our only defense. Shouldn't all freedom-loving Americans speak out and vote against shaving protections against arbitrary search and seizure paper thin? Shouldn't all freedom-loving Americans vote against politicians who support things like universal wiretapping, dragnet searches and presumption of guilt in airports and at borders? In short, I don't believe that having a gun is any kind of last defense against loss of rights. I'll believe that when I see Waye LaPierre denouncing airport nude-a-trons, or when the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners actively join suit against the US DoJ for warrantless wiretapping.
• buster 14y ago
  I'm not american but i think my own right for life, liberty and happiness would be violated being surrounded by weapon fanatics.. I really don't understand all that "uh, i need to defend myself" bullshit when i look at all the safe western countries with much stricter weapon laws. I think this is all not a matter of rights or self-defense or all that crap people tell me, it's just that most people can't cope with change ("no, don't take away my toy, buhuhuhu!") plus a billion dollar weapon industry.
  • nnutter 14y ago
    It's not the weapon that violates any of that it is the person using the weapon. Some weapons have purposes other than as a weapon but your argument would still imply that your right to life, liberty, and happiness would be violated so we should make forks, knives, bats, pans, cars, everything illegal. Slippery slope? Sure. There's a spectrum and everyone chooses where the line sits for them. I don't want easy access to nuclear weapons but I'm still OK with easy access to guns.
    • tome 14y ago
      It is much, much harder to kill people with forks, knives, bats, and pans than it is with a gun. (I'm less certain about cars, but they have substantial non-murdering use).
      • giardini 14y ago
        Yet another reason to allow the use of firearms: the sheer labor of killing an assailant (or worse, the ignominy of having been killed) with a kitchen pan! But a merciful byebye by bullet beats bludgeoning by bat.
    • buster 14y ago
      blah blah blablah, i can stop reading your comment right at " it is the person using the weapon", that's the stupid stuff people keep repeating over and over and over again, like it would make sooo much sense, it's hilarious. Do you honestly believe that less people will die if you distribute more weapons among people!? Honestly?! Like think-really-hard-about-it-and-be-honest-to-yourself honestly? If yes, you are successfully lying to yourself, congratulations. I think that americans just feel that this weapon owning is some sort of common property, a value of the americam people that needs to be protected because everyone grew up with this value and noone can imagine to not have those rights. In that sense it is the same as the no-speed-limit driving in germany. We grew up with that and it is virtually unthinkable that the state will introduce a speed limit on motorways, partly because of the car industry but more importantly because every german grows up with it. It's crystal clear to me that there are more car accidents when cars drive faster (overall, driving faster equals less time to react to dangerous situations). Yet i can't imagine to drive max. 130 km/h although every surrounding country does that. In the same way i can say "It's not fast driving that kills, it's bad drivers!!!!", but we both know it's a stupid excuse.
• diegocg 14y ago
  That "libertarianesque" definicion of freedom commonly used in America is not shared or understood by many countries (not that it matters to americans, of course)
  • Tangaroa 14y ago
    The definition of freedom in about a third of those countries is that you have the freedom to surrender your independence to God and the state, and if you step out of line they will kill you in public as an example to everyone else. The definition of freedom in another large chunk of the world is that the single-party state is the sole legitimate representative of the people and has the sole power to decide what freedom is, and people who obey the party line have plenty of freedom but if you step out of line they will seize your property "for the people" and throw you in jail on false charges. I will take the American definition of freedom, thanks.
    • deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    • rplacd 14y ago
      And why should those be the only options? Of course our options needn't keep state and citizenry separate - in fact, "quite a few" states do place themselves in the middle of the continuum: democratic systems, in theory, join the state and citizenry at the hip and provide the luxury of dealing in a pragmatic manner with the problem of making something so abstract as "freedom" manifest - as-you-go, considerate of subtly different definitions of freedom. Real life doesn't necessarily live up to this ideal; but some of the heights of American legislation do show what is possible.
    • diegocg 14y ago
      The definition of freedom in catholic countries is that men are free to choose between good and evil, but precisely because they are able to make a choice, they often choose evil, so true freedom can only be achieved repressing evil. It's hard to sell them the idea that letting everyone have guns (or letting investors do whatever they want) can create a virtuous society.