I keep falling into the same mindset as many other people and perhaps even more so than most. When someone asks a question I take it at face value and try to answer the question. Then, if necessary, I attempt to explain the answer to them. In many cases this is completely the wrong approach. In the case of a confrontation with an anti-gun person if you are answering their questions you are losing.
Today Say Uncle hinted pretty strongly at the proper approach to suggestions magazine capacity should be restricted but I think that thought should be amplified.
When someone suggests the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms should be restricted the response should be a look of extreme incredulity and informing them that they should not act on that impulse. Such acts are illegal. People acting on them can and should be arrested and sent to prison. The same goes for politicians.
This is no different than someone proposing the right to freedom of association should be limited to those groups that pass a sporting purpose test and be restricted to ten people or less. After all you only need five people for a basketball team and ten people can make a baseball team. If you want to associate in groups larger than if can only mean you want to form an angry mob and riot. You don’t need to associate in larger groups than ten, right?
Now that the cards are on the table tell me we can find common ground and compromise on something “reasonable” for both sides.
Some of those same people are also advocating the repeal of the Second Amendment. I find this just as abhorrent as I would a suggestion of repealing the 13th Amendment. We fought a civil war over that issue and I would expect no less over the attempted repeal of the Second Amendment.
My position is that people advocating such actions apparently can’t handle freedom and should therefore seek the security of some place that allows them only that which they really need. Can’t we set up a charity to subsidize one-way tickets to North Korea for them? That is a compromise I could agree with.
Courtesy of Billy Beck, this struck me as up your alley.
http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html
That reminds me of a comment I read a while ago, which the commenter remembered from an old thread somewhere:
“Needs” are pretty easy to identify (or at least dintinguish from “wants”).
Just ask yourself the question:
“If you were locked up in a Supermax, would the authorities be obligated, BY LAW, to give you that item or freedom, on the grounds that they have a responisbility to care for your needs since they are keeping you from caring for them?”
If the answer is “Yes”, there is a good chance the item in question is a “need”. Food, shelter, medical care.
If the answer is “No”, it CANNOT be a “need”, and must be a “want”. Sometimes a “want” that is protected by law for those outside jail, but a “want” nonetheless.
Geodkyt,
Your argument fails. Here’s why–if you are in a supermax, by law the guards have to take reasonable precautions against attacks and injuries due to the other prisoners–hence the concept of “protective custody”. It is that way because prisoners (for obvious reasons) are not allowed to have the tools to defend themselves properly. (although it must be noted that does not stop them from improvising). Thus the guards must provide defense for them. Thus defense is a need, by your definition.
However, having said that, the whole point is moot because self defense is a human right. As such, it does not need to be justified by need or want–we simply have it, unless we allow it to be taken away or someone removes it by force.
I would like to point out that self defense is an “inalienable right”. Someone cannot steal your right to self defense and make it their own. They can steal your property, but they cannot steal your life, liberty, or innate right to self defense. They can take them, but they cannot steal them.
Joe, football requires a minimum of 11 players on a team (22 if they exclusive to offense or defense, 24 if you add in a place kicker and a punter). Of course, some mobs were less than 24 people too!
Publius,
You just proved my point.
Defense of your life or limb against unlawful attack is a “need”. If you deprive me of my ability to handle that need myself, then you must supply that defense for me.
Which is the way SCOTUS rules on the matter, everytime it comes their way, including specifically pointing out that prisoners (unlike the general public) have an individual RIGHT to be reasonably protected by the authorities from unlawful attack.
geodkyt
Or were you assuming that somehow a “need” cannot also be a “right”?
A “need” can be a “right”.
A “want” can be a “right”.
Not “rights” are “needs”.
Rights are generally protected by law.* Even if they are only “wants”, they are still “rights”.
I have both a need and a right to defend myself against criminal attack. I have a right, but not a need, to do so with a particular style of gun.
Which is why prisoners may have their right to move about the country freely, but citizens and lawful residents generally cannot (with a few exceptions — under indictment and told to stay local, minors without parental consent, etc.).
* This does not mean they are necessarily CREATED by law, by the way. Some are, some aren’t — the ones in the Bill of Rights tend to be considered pre-existing ones (“fundamental”, in SCOTUSese). The right to both birthright US citizenship and automatic state citizenship to US citizens who are residents of that state was created by law. The right of 18 year olds not to be denied their electoral franchise on the basis of age was created by law. The right to not incriminate yourself is and was considered to pre-exist the Constitution.
I must have been confused–I thought somehow that you were trying to argue *against* gun rights, not *for* them. My mistake–I’m sorry I took things in the wrong direction.