gun control, Iran and North Korea

[bytebear]

21 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

So, speaking hypothetically, when your heavily armed neighbors who hate Mormons learn that you are now LDS and want to run you out of town, do we figuratively step on them and take away their guns?  

Has he threatened you with violence?  If so, he may very well be convicted and lose his rights to own a firearm.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

So, speaking hypothetically, when your heavily armed neighbors who hate Mormons learn that you are now LDS and want to run you out of town, do we figuratively step on them and take away their guns?  

Think about that historically for just one minute.  Missouri. Nauvoo. Ohio.  Ring any bells?

Even when we've been threatened, even when an angry mob shot Joseph and Hyrum to death, we never asked government to pass laws to limit the right to bear arms.

[bytebear]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Think about that historically for just one minute.  Missouri. Nauvoo. Ohio.  Ring any bells?

Even when we've been threatened, even when an angry mob shot Joseph and Hyrum to death, we never asked government to pass laws to limit the right to bear arms.

Because they knew the laws would be used against them and not the aggressors.

[unixknight]

3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Details and specifics are separate from principals, as illustrated by the anecdote below and once you cross the line, then its only a matter of degree. 

They are telling this of Lord Beaverbrook and a visiting Yankee actress. In a game of hypothetical questions, Beaverbrook asked the lady: ‘Would you live with a stranger if he paid you one million pounds?’ She said she would. ‘And if be paid you five pounds?’ The irate lady fumed: ‘Five pounds. What do you think I am?’ Beaverbrook replied: ‘We’ve already established that. Now we are trying to determine the degree.

A much better analogy would be:  A person constantly threatens to murder his next door neighbor and has a history of violence.

Said person would not be able to purchase a firearm already.

There.  You have what you want.  Is that enough?

[unixknight]

Duplicate posts make Santa cry.

Edited May 24, 2018 by unixknight

[Grunt]

8 hours ago, askandanswer said:

So, speaking hypothetically, when your heavily armed neighbors who hate Mormons learn that you are now LDS and want to run you out of town, do we figuratively step on them and take away their guns?  

“Want” to?  No.  Intend to?  Yes.  Intent and credibility of the threat matter.  I don’t care if “we” do it.  If my neighbor has a history of violence.  If my neighbor has stated he will kill my family if he can.  If my neighbor takes action to procure the means to harm my family.  I promise you, trying my best to remove all likeness to internet bravado, I will personally take any action necessary to remove that threat.  

[anatess2]

15 hours ago, askandanswer said:

It seems to me that US efforts to disarm Iran and North Korea are nothing more than an effort at gun control on a global scale. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing I'm just having difficulty seeing consistency in the arguements of people who oppose gun control in America but who support efforts to impose a form of gun control on others.

So... you don't see the difference between wanna-be-Nuclear North Korea and Iran versus already nuclear UK and France?

And you don't see the difference between armed US general population versus disarmed criminal population?

You don't see the similarity?

[unixknight]

11 hours ago, bytebear said:

Because they knew the laws would be used against them and not the aggressors.

Welcome to the pro-Second Amendment side.

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Welcome to the pro-Second Amendment side.

Uhm... that's a funny way to put it.

More appropriately would be... welcome to the Constitutionalist side.

[askandanswer]

16 hours ago, bytebear said:

Has he threatened you with violence?  If so, he may very well be convicted and lose his rights to own a firearm.

 

14 hours ago, unixknight said:

A much better analogy would be:  A person constantly threatens to murder his next door neighbor and has a history of violence.

Said person would not be able to purchase a firearm already.

There.  You have what you want.  Is that enough?

 

16 hours ago, bytebear said:

Iran and NKorea have openly engaged in rhetoric that they will destroy their peaceful neighbors. 

We don't allow people who actively want to murder people guns.  We have due procees, or should, to deem such individuals unworthy to own a weapon, and we currently ban convicted felons from owning firearms. 

Same thing with nations.  We have judged Iran and NKorea as guilty and not worthy to have weapons of mass destruction.

Thank you, these are useful contributions to my understanding of US gun control laws. How do these laws get around the constituional right to own and bear arms?

[unixknight]

4 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Thank you, these are useful contributions to my understanding of US gun control laws. How do these laws get around the constituional right to own and bear arms?

Not sure I understand what you mean by getting around the Constitutional right, but if I understand you correctly, the answer is this:

The right to own firearms can be suspended by due process of law.  Generally that means if a person has been convicted of certain types of crimes, in court, (violent crimes, felonies, etc.) that right is suspended.  Each state has slightly different laws on this, but generally speaking a felony on your record would prevent you from gun ownership, or if you have a history of violence or mental illness.

Also, I think in some states if you currently have a restraining order, you can't  buy a gun.

Edited May 24, 2018 by unixknight

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Thank you, these are useful contributions to my understanding of US gun control laws. How do these laws get around the constituional right to own and bear arms?

Any rights can be denied to those who have shown that they irresponsibly exercise those rights to the point that they infringe on the rights of others.  What makes you think otherwise?

[askandanswer]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

So... you don't see the difference between wanna-be-Nuclear North Korea and Iran versus already nuclear UK and France?

And you don't see the difference between armed US general population versus disarmed criminal population?

You don't see the similarity?

I hear Trump saying North Korea and Iran are dangerous and pose a risk to peace and safety so we need to take away their weapons. I hear gun control advocates saying guns are dangerous and pose a risk to peace and safety so we need to take away those guns. I see some similarity between those two arguments. I'm not asking whether gun control or nuclear disarmament is good or bad, or whether it should or should not be done. The OP was asking if

"The objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from people have any similarities with the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from Iran and North Korea?"

•  

[askandanswer]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Any rights can be denied to those who have shown that they irresponsibly exercise those rights to the point that they infringe on the rights of others.  What makes you think otherwise?

The second amendment made me think otherwise. I thought it was pretty much an unconditional right with few restraints. I'm only know starting to get an understanding of the limitations on the right to bear arms. 

[Guest]

Just now, askandanswer said:

The second amendment made me think otherwise. I thought it was pretty much an unconditional right with few restraints. I'm only know starting to get an understanding of the limitations on the right to bear arms. 

I'll have to start a new thread on the meaning/definition of "rights".  This seems to somehow elude non-Americans, and even most liberal Americans.

[SilentOne]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

I hear Trump saying North Korea and Iran are dangerous and pose a risk to peace and safety so we need to take away their weapons.

Taking away objects from dangerous actors.

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

I hear gun control advocates saying guns are dangerous and pose a risk to peace and safety so we need to take away those guns.

Taking away objects from all actors.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

I hear Trump saying North Korea and Iran are dangerous and pose a risk to peace and safety so we need to take away their weapons. I hear gun control advocates saying guns are dangerous and pose a risk to peace and safety so we need to take away those guns. I see some similarity between those two arguments. I'm not asking whether gun control or nuclear disarmament is good or bad, or whether it should or should not be done. The OP was asking if

"The objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from people have any similarities with the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from Iran and North Korea?"

•  

Note the difference.. North Korea and Iran are groups of people... Guns are objects.  You equate them so your logic fails  People = People.  Objects = Objects.  People <> Objects.

Every Right comes with a inherent duty.  The Right to Bear Arms comes with the Duty to do so responsibly for your protection and the protection of your loved ones.  Failure to do the Duty inherent with the Right results in the Right revocation

[bytebear]

16 hours ago, unixknight said:

Welcome to the pro-Second Amendment side.

I didn't realize I had left it.

[NightSG]

12 hours ago, askandanswer said:

The second amendment made me think otherwise. I thought it was pretty much an unconditional right with few restraints. I'm only know starting to get an understanding of the limitations on the right to bear arms. 

Even life can be denied to an individual duly convicted of a sufficiently serious crime.  While the Second Amendment protects an important right, it is certainly a lesser right than life itself.

[Grunt]

2 hours ago, NightSG said:

Even life can be denied to an individual duly convicted of a sufficiently serious crime.  While the Second Amendment protects an important right, it is certainly a lesser right than life itself.

I disagree that there are “lesser rights” when discussing inherent rights.  These rights are intertwined.  The second amendment isn’t designed to protect property ownership, it’s an acknowledgement of an individuals right to defend life and liberty.  

[anatess2]

5 hours ago, Grunt said:

I disagree that there are “lesser rights” when discussing inherent rights.  These rights are intertwined.  The second amendment isn’t designed to protect property ownership, it’s an acknowledgement of an individuals right to defend life and liberty.  

I'd take it farther to it is the individual's right AND PRIMARY DUTY to defend life and liberty.  It is not the governments', it is not the police's, it is not the soldier's, although they are also tasked with it.  But, after all is said and done, the buck stops with the individual.

This is the difference between Australia with the rest of the world, and the USA.  Whatever comparisons people make between Australia and the US gun control efforts are irrelevant because of this major difference in principle.

[estradling75]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I'd take it farther to it is the individual's right AND PRIMARY DUTY to defend life and liberty.  It is not the governments', it is not the police's, it is not the soldier's, although they are also tasked with it.  But, after all is said and done, the buck stops with the individual.

This is the difference between Australia with the rest of the world, and the USA.  Whatever comparisons people make between Australia and the US gun control efforts are irrelevant because of this major difference in principle.

Note also that it builds up from this Right of an Individual to defend themselves.  Police, military, Government are all founded on the idea of individuals coming together to do together what they can't do very well on their own.  Thus the power lies fundamentally with the people/individuals.

This is wildly different then the idea of Power in the Government and it handing down rights and laws on its own whims.

[NightSG]

5 hours ago, Grunt said:

I disagree that there are “lesser rights” when discussing inherent rights.  These rights are intertwined.  The second amendment isn’t designed to protect property ownership, it’s an acknowledgement of an individuals right to defend life and liberty.  

However, it's common, in the case of felons, to permanently deny the right to bear arms and not the right to life.  Once the right to live is denied, the right to bear arms is rather pointless.

Of course, for obvious reasons, life is a one-way street; once taken, none of us has the ability to reinstate it, whereas the right to bear arms is effectively suspended for every person taken into custody, and then reinstated upon release if they don't meet the criteria for permanent revocation.

[Mike]

On 5/22/2018 at 6:51 PM, askandanswer said:

 

Do the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from people have any similarities with the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from Iran and North Korea?

The objectives are similar, i.e. to make the world safer. But the situations are not sufficiently similar for comparison to support an identical argument. For example it is possible (though unlikely) to eliminate North Korean or Iranian access to nuclear weapons. It is impossible (speaking practically) to eliminate all Americans' access to firearms. It is desirable to eliminate North Korean and Iranian access to nuclear weapons. It isn't desirable to eliminate all Americans' access to firearms.

[Grunt]

43 minutes ago, NightSG said:

However, it's common, in the case of felons, to permanently deny the right to bear arms and not the right to life.  Once the right to live is denied, the right to bear arms is rather pointless.

Of course, for obvious reasons, life is a one-way street; once taken, none of us has the ability to reinstate it, whereas the right to bear arms is effectively suspended for every person taken into custody, and then reinstated upon release if they don't meet the criteria for permanent revocation.

It’s common to keep kill children in the womb.  That doesn’t lessen their right to life.