| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/26/2008 12:29:00 PM · #1526 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I can easily dismiss out-of-hand anyone's claim to rights of gun ownership. It's frankly nonsensical to me. My position is blandly simple: nobody should have the right to own a gun, and all gun ownership should be banned. Easy. The totemization of guns and the squabbling for the "right" to own them is an offense to me. |
Well now, you have to be pretty careful of that kind of broad sweeping statement.
If you live in a very rural or wilderness area, and/or have livestock you will at some point need a gun. That's a fact. You will have to put an animal down at some point most likely, and that'd be real hard to do efficiently without a gun. You may also have to protect your stock from predators and if you don't have a gun, the exercise will either be futile or suicidal.
Upon occasion, a rabid animal will appear in the outskirts of housing areas as well. You don't just humanely trap them and put them to sleep. You shoot them and burn them.
Now I'm definitely in your court with city dwellers owning guns, and the absolute ludicrous concept of people who want automatic weapons......and let's face it, handguns ARE for killing people. But there are legitimate reasons for rifles & shotguns that don't have anything to do with killing people.
BTW, having bulldozed all too much habitat here in the NorthEast, and having killed off and driven out natural predators, the deer population here MUST be hunted down or they'll severely overpopulate, starve, and end up all over the roads.....you'd be amazed at the stats for automobile damage by deer in the NorthEast US.
Message edited by author 2008-11-26 12:30:33.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2008 12:48:04 PM · #1527 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Further, that you can draw a comparison between the "right" to own a device that exists for the sole purpose of murdering people -- oh, sorry, for protecting your family and fer shootin' holes in thangs -- and the right of gay people to be treated just like everyone else is a chilling twist of logic. |
Oh gosh, here we go...
I've made the same comparison myself, before. Is that not also chilling? In my opinion, they are both civil liberties issues. That's a parallel right on the surface.
If a simple majority can take away the right for me to wed, a simple majority can take away my right to shoot holes in thangs, so I'd hope that Flash could see the utility in voting down an intitiative like Prop 8, and how having it ruled unconstutuional bolsters his (our) own position on firearm ownership. Another parallel!
While I don't use guns for home defense myself, just sport, 'protecting the family' is a third big parallel I could draw... many people see both issues in these terms. You might not agree that a gun helps protect a family, but it's another strong ideological parallel. It's interesting that as far as gay rights go, BOTH sides of the issue claim ownership of this idea as their own... gays because marriage helps give personal bonds the strength and backing of law, opponents of gays because they see gay families as undermining that bond itself.
My garage is a bristling array of powered tools that could cause just as much if not more harm than a gun. Some of that stuff is downright scary. Table saw, anyone? Yet I am trusted as a law abiding citizen to own them... even the deadly nail gun!
I beleve that with guns, just like words, it is the intent and effect of their use that matters, not the individual objects themselves. The same words that can hurt can help when used in a different way. A gun is just a tool like any other, one that's designed to poke holes in things at a distance. It can be used for good or bad, like a laser pointer, knife, or computer.
Now let's not get into another big guns vs. no guns debate... I just wanted to point out that the idea there are NO parallels here seems, well, just wrong to me. I think there are many, and I don't like seeing what I feel are invalid arguments from any side of a debate. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 12:54:00 PM · #1528 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
While I don't use guns for home defense myself, just sport, 'protecting the family' is a third big parallel I could draw... many people see both issues in these terms. You might not agree that a gun helps protect a family, but it's another strong ideological parallel. |
That's only valid in the situation where both luck and training come into play.....the luck that you can get to the gun in time, and the training that you know how, and are WILLING TO USE IT. Shooting someone is never as cavalier and easy as they make it look on TV or in the movies.
The stats are downright sickening as to how many people get shot with their own guns during home invasions.
You have to have minimal training and a license to operate a car whose purpose is not killing....why not guns?
Not a rights thing at all IMO.
They should be a controlled substance.......8>)
|
|
|
|
11/26/2008 12:59:07 PM · #1529 |
| There is no parallel between the gun rights debate and the gay marriage debate. Gun rights treat everyone equally regardless of race, sex, or anything else except felony conviction (which is not based on race, sex, etc). Current marriage laws do NOT treat everyone equally with regard to race, sex, or anything else. If gun rights advocates were saying they want gun ownership rights for whites or gun ownership rights for men but do not want to allow others those same rights, then we would be in the same area of civil rights. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 01:02:03 PM · #1530 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Flash:
... When I proposed advocating on behalf of gay rights here in the states if Louis would champion gun rights in Canada - he said "no way!". Well are some rights more important than others? |
While the rights you refer to are indeed covered under your constitution, you must remember that no such rights exist in Canada. Viewed in this perspective your question is moot.
Ray |
1st off, I appreciate NikonJebs and Mousies take above. NikonJebs real life data on predators and excess deer populations is spot on. Mousies particular understanding of both issues is in part one purpose for that post as if anyone "could" understand my point, I trusted that Mousie would.
Now to Ray - Canada treats one of my rights as a privilege while the US treats one of your rights that way. So again I ask - what is the difference? We have some here claiming something is a "right" when it is not defined as such by our law and you have an example of something that is not defined as a "right" by your law, that some (even Canadians) feel clearly is. I see no difference. Yet some here have no reservation about defining same sex marriage as a right when the law does not claim it so. So does that make it moot? Hardly - exactly why many are fighting to change the law to make it clearly a right. Same could be said of those fighting for a change in Canadian gun laws - with about as much success as gays are having here in the states.
In other words - if you can deny others their rights, then please expect others to feel comfortable denying some of yours. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 01:07:18 PM · #1531 |
Originally posted by Flash:
In other words - if you can deny others their rights, then please expect others to feel comfortable denying some of yours. |
Flash, it's NOT the same thing.
You didn't answer the previous question.....I assume you're choosing to ignore it.
My point in two posts was although I'm not opposed to gun ownership, I feel that there should be limits and training, not just any idiot with a pocketful of cash and a desire for automatic weapons should be allowed to get them.
How does this very real conflict about the control, or lack of it, of guns compare with whether or not gays are discriminated against?
It is NOT related.
The whole 2nd Amendment debate rages.......I don't interpret it the same way that many do as a "right" to gun ownership.
We're talking civil rights and equality, not guns. The gun issue is not a rights issue.
Message edited by author 2008-11-26 13:10:33.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2008 01:11:11 PM · #1532 |
Originally posted by Flash:
We have some here claiming something is a "right" when it is not defined as such by our law and you have an example of something that is not defined as a "right" by your law, that some (even Canadians) feel clearly is. I see no difference. Yet some here have no reservation about defining same sex marriage as a right when the law does not claim it so. |
What Dahkota said. The difference is that you're attaching a qualifier to one of those, thereby restricting a "right" to a particular group while excluding others. Marriage itself is not a defined right in the U.S., but the right to bear arms is. If you want to portray these as parallel issues, then you must attach qualifiers to each or neither. The right to bear arms is equivalent to the "right" to marry, period, or the right to same sex marriage is equivalent to the right of white men (only) to bear arms. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 01:22:14 PM · #1533 |
The term "rights" is quickly used by a multitude of positioners on many varied issues. Gay Rights. The rights of the unborn. Gun rights. Equal rights. Women rights. Just what are rights anyway? Here is an overview. When discussing rights, there are natural rights and legal rights. Some rights are deemed to be so obvious (right to self defense) that many claim them to be inherent in ones being - or as some claim - a divine right.
If we keep with just the definitions of rights as "legal rights", then Ray's position and my answer is clear. Some legal rights exist in Canada that do not exist in the states and is true of the reverse - some legal rights exist in the states that do not exist in Canada. My point is that because a right does not exist legally does not keep a group from claiming a thing is a "right". Denying the rights of others is indeed pretty easy as we all could be deemed guilty on denying sonmeone else's percieved right. Thus, if you are comfortable denying others their rights, then don't be surprised that they are equally comfortable with denying some of yours.
The argument that gay marriage is a right might be true from a "natural" viewpoint, but it is not a legal right in some jurisdictions. Just as gun ownership is not a legal right in some places whist it certainly could be argued to be a divine one. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 01:31:12 PM · #1534 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Just as gun ownership is not a legal right in some places whist it certainly could be argued to be a divine one. |
Come again? |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 01:31:16 PM · #1535 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Marriage itself is not a defined right in the U.S., |
Sure it is. DrAchoo has pointed out several times that it is defined as between a man and a woman and anyone has the right to enjoy that defined right.
What is being argued is that marriage between 2 persons of the same sex should equally be within that definition - maybe it should - but that is not the current legal definition of the right to marry. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 01:35:24 PM · #1536 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Just as gun ownership is not a legal right in some places whist it certainly could be argued to be a divine one. |
Come again? |
Natural rights versus legal rights. The right to self defense is claimed by some to be a natural right (aka a divine right or a right so inherent in ones being that it precludes even needing a legal right to make it so). That obviously does not stop those who disagree (like you) with claiming that legal rights are what matters. OK. So in the states gay marriage is illegal (in many jurisdictions). Does the illegality of it stop you from believeing it is so? No. So then where does this "right" of same sex marriage come from? Is it a natural right? Perhaps. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 01:44:18 PM · #1537 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The argument that gay marriage is a right might be true from a "natural" viewpoint, but it is not a legal right in some jurisdictions. Just as gun ownership is not a legal right in some places whist it certainly could be argued to be a divine one. |
You're still doing it- comparing a general right to own guns with a marriage "right" restricted to a specific group. IF gays were prohibited from owning guns in the U.S., then you'd have a valid point. Otherwise, you're trying to draw a false comparison. Regardless of whether it has been legally stated, people either have the inherent right to bear arms or they don't, and they either have the right to marry or they don't.
Oh, and the notion that ownership of manmade objects designed to kill things would be a divine right is funny. Ironic, insane, but funny. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 01:49:05 PM · #1538 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Marriage itself is not a defined right in the U.S., |
Sure it is. DrAchoo has pointed out several times that it is defined as between a man and a woman and anyone has the right to enjoy that defined right. |
No, it's not. You're referring to an act defining the term, not the right. Nowhere does it state that people have a right to marry, and if it did, then Article 2 would make such discrimination illegal. "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." DOMA will eventually be ruled unconstitutional on that basis. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 01:49:54 PM · #1539 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
[Oh, and the notion that ownership of manmade objects designed to kill things would be a divine right is funny. Ironic, insane, but funny. |
Kind of like swords. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 01:52:13 PM · #1540 |
Guns as divine right.... hokay.
 |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 01:56:32 PM · #1541 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Guns as divine right.... hokay.
|
FWIW - that 50 cal pictured is a bit of an upgrade to Michael's sword. Not too good for concealed daily carry - but it makes a BIG hole. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 01:59:39 PM · #1542 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The right to self defense is claimed by some to be a natural right (aka a divine right or a right so inherent in ones being that it precludes even needing a legal right to make it so). |
Hence the universal right to marry has not yet been legally declared. It's a commitment so inherently obvious that it ranks up there with the "right" to breathe or eat. Once so declared, you could not legally restrict that universal right to specific groups under the U.S. constitution. The attempt to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, particularly on religious grounds, is a doomed approach... "The reason bishops of the Church are not allowed to marry is because they are metaphorically married to the Church, the bride of Christ." Omigosh! Gay marriage! |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 02:02:41 PM · #1543 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
[Oh, and the notion that ownership of manmade objects designed to kill things would be a divine right is funny. Ironic, insane, but funny. |
Kind of like swords. |
Yep, same deal. Thou shalt not kill, yet ye shall have the inherent right to invent and carry tools for that purpose. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 02:04:19 PM · #1544 |
| I empathize with those who regard gay marriage as a right. What I don't get is how some in that camp can fail to empathize with those who hold other issues as rights - just as near and dear to them (right of the unborn), and make this argument that their is more of a right than anothers and claim outrage when others make the same claim. If you want your rights to be recognized, then perhaps you should not be so quick to deny others theirs. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 02:06:41 PM · #1545 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
[Oh, and the notion that ownership of manmade objects designed to kill things would be a divine right is funny. Ironic, insane, but funny. |
Kind of like swords. |
Yep, same deal. Thou shalt not kill, yet ye shall have the inherent right to invent and carry tools for that purpose. |
Thou shalt not murder. Killing is pretty much OK. But for those whom the commandents of GOD don't apply anyway as there is no GOD to issue commandments, from whence does natural rights come? |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 02:07:17 PM · #1546 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I empathize with those who regard gay marriage as a right. |
You're still doing it. The right would be marriage. The restriction is discrimination unrelated to the right itself. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 02:10:03 PM · #1547 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I empathize with those who regard gay marriage as a right. What I don't get is how some in that camp can fail to empathize with those who hold other issues as rights - just as near and dear to them (right of the unborn), and make this argument that their is more of a right than anothers and claim outrage when others make the same claim. If you want your rights to be recognized, then perhaps you should not be so quick to deny others theirs. |
I don't think Gay marriage is a right. I don't think straight marriage is a right. I just believe that if you (or your government) is going to allow some people to gain benefits by entering a contract, that you (or your government) should allow ALL people to gain the same benefits by entering the same contract.
I don't think gun ownership is a right - I think it is a privilege, just like driving a car is a privilege (not a right). |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 02:13:10 PM · #1548 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
I empathize with those who regard gay marriage as a right. |
You're still doing it. The right would be marriage. The restriction is discrimination unrelated to the right itself. |
Reads to me that your argument is with those in the gay community who continue to use the term "gay rights". Including marriage between persons of the same sex.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2008 02:14:51 PM · #1549 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
I empathize with those who regard gay marriage as a right. |
You're still doing it. The right would be marriage. The restriction is discrimination unrelated to the right itself. |
Reads to me that your argument is with those in the gay community who continue to use the term "gay rights". Including marriage between persons of the same sex. |
Same as the people who keep calling it gun rights.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2008 02:15:09 PM · #1550 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by Flash:
I empathize with those who regard gay marriage as a right. What I don't get is how some in that camp can fail to empathize with those who hold other issues as rights - just as near and dear to them (right of the unborn), and make this argument that their is more of a right than anothers and claim outrage when others make the same claim. If you want your rights to be recognized, then perhaps you should not be so quick to deny others theirs. |
I don't think Gay marriage is a right. I don't think straight marriage is a right. I just believe that if you (or your government) is going to allow some people to gain benefits by entering a contract, that you (or your government) should allow ALL people to gain the same benefits by entering the same contract.
I don't think gun ownership is a right - I think it is a privilege, just like driving a car is a privilege (not a right). |
OK. Then those in the gay community and their advocates should stop using the term gay "rights". Perhaps they should use gay benefits. |
|
