Tweet
Don't know if this is the right place for this, but I'm getting tired of explaining gun rights = civil rights to people. So I thought I'd formulate a document in my own words that I can just copy and paste every time I see a gun-control comment somewhere online and use as notes when talking in person.
I think I did a pretty good job of leading through the thought process, but I would like someone, or lots of someones, to double check my logic and arguments so I can make it better so it's harder to attack and see if I've missed anything.
Obviously it's not an exhaustive list of arguments. And I don't seriously expect it to really sway the hard core anti-gunners.
Well, here it is::
The idea of natural rights is that every person always has certain rights. No one gives you these rights, they are yours by the very fact of your existence from the time you are born, until you PROVE yourself incapable of using them responsibly and society at large stops you from doing so.
Everyone has these rights, no matter who they are, man/woman, strong/weak, rich/poor, gay/straight, black/white/asian/hispanic, republican/democrat/other.
No one, no god, no king, no government gave you these rights, so they can't arbitrarily take them away.
By choosing to live with other people, we recognize that others too have rights. We do not wish to infringe on their rights.
And so our rights end when they ACTIVELY infringe on someone else's. But that infringement must be actual, not potential.
To take away an innocent person's rights when they have committed no crime, done no wrong, infringed on no one else's rights, is a crime in and of itself.
So we voluntarily limit our rights where they infringe on someone else's.
The method we chose to determine if infringement has happened is called Due Process(a jury of your peers).
Then, and only then, will we limit these most important natural rights.
The first of these natural rights is the right of life. That whole "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" thing.
Why is life first? Because the dead have no rights at all. Would you let a zombie vote?
Along with accepting that each person has the right to live, comes self defense, the right of each person to fight for their own continued existence against those who would unlawfully end it.
So what good is having a right to self-defense, a right to continued life, if you do not have the means to implement it?
I believe the current best, most effective, self defense tool is a semi-automatic firearm, be it pistol (for out and about) or rifle (for in the home).
Would you take a knife to a gun fight? Why handicap yourself with outdated technology?
If you are willing to risk your life based on the principle that guns (or certain types of guns) are inherently bad, that's fine. You also have a right to eschew your own self-defense.
Don't ask me to risk my life and the lives of my loved ones on your principles.
Why do I say a semi-automatic firearm is the best choice for me?
It takes some training to use a firearm, but not nearly as much CONSTANT training as martial arts, archery, sword, or knife fighting.
A firearm doesn't take a lot of physical strength, like the alternatives do. This means your 90 lb grandma can fight off a 250 lb steroid freak.
A firearm is a more certain deterrent than a taser or pepper spray.
You don't have to be in arm's reach of your assailant to use a firearm.
A firearm can be always ready, a criminal won't let you pick the circumstances of the fight.
A semi-automatic takes less steps to fire than a manual action.
A semi-automatic can be quickly reloaded instead of fumbling around for loose ammunition, and needs to be reloaded less often.
For all of these reasons, if semi-automatic firearms are banned, they're not going away, they're just too good at what they do.
They are an efficient and mature technology. This means criminals WILL have them.
I guarantee, somewhere out there, there is a person who would kill you for your iPhone.
Naturally when Star Trek-like phasers come along no one is going to want a firearm anymore except as history.
If people are to surrender their arms it must be done voluntarily.
History has shown how poorly prohibitions work.
We tried it in the '20s with alcohol. We tried it again with marijuana and narcotics.
To try and ban something that people want, doesn't work.
When alcohol was targeted, people set up secret stills and speakeasies, criminal gangs formed to distribute this supply to the masses.
When drugs were targeted, secret grow farms and meth labs were set up, criminal gangs formed to distribute this supply to the masses.
Chemistry-control doesn't work.
Technology-control doesn't work.
Gun-control doesn't work either.
In short People-control doesn't work.
It's all the same thing.
If you think it will, I think you're underestimating people.
The most obvious attacks I can see are:
arguing that simple possession of a <firearm they don't like> is some sort of infringement on their rights.
arguing that a manual-action firearm is just as, or more, effective.
arguing that a police force satisfies the right of self-defense.
edit: arguing that you must PROVE your worthiness to possess rights.
Thanks all.
-James
I think I did a pretty good job of leading through the thought process, but I would like someone, or lots of someones, to double check my logic and arguments so I can make it better so it's harder to attack and see if I've missed anything.
Obviously it's not an exhaustive list of arguments. And I don't seriously expect it to really sway the hard core anti-gunners.
Well, here it is::
The idea of natural rights is that every person always has certain rights. No one gives you these rights, they are yours by the very fact of your existence from the time you are born, until you PROVE yourself incapable of using them responsibly and society at large stops you from doing so.
Everyone has these rights, no matter who they are, man/woman, strong/weak, rich/poor, gay/straight, black/white/asian/hispanic, republican/democrat/other.
No one, no god, no king, no government gave you these rights, so they can't arbitrarily take them away.
By choosing to live with other people, we recognize that others too have rights. We do not wish to infringe on their rights.
And so our rights end when they ACTIVELY infringe on someone else's. But that infringement must be actual, not potential.
To take away an innocent person's rights when they have committed no crime, done no wrong, infringed on no one else's rights, is a crime in and of itself.
So we voluntarily limit our rights where they infringe on someone else's.
The method we chose to determine if infringement has happened is called Due Process(a jury of your peers).
Then, and only then, will we limit these most important natural rights.
The first of these natural rights is the right of life. That whole "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" thing.
Why is life first? Because the dead have no rights at all. Would you let a zombie vote?
Along with accepting that each person has the right to live, comes self defense, the right of each person to fight for their own continued existence against those who would unlawfully end it.
So what good is having a right to self-defense, a right to continued life, if you do not have the means to implement it?
I believe the current best, most effective, self defense tool is a semi-automatic firearm, be it pistol (for out and about) or rifle (for in the home).
Would you take a knife to a gun fight? Why handicap yourself with outdated technology?
If you are willing to risk your life based on the principle that guns (or certain types of guns) are inherently bad, that's fine. You also have a right to eschew your own self-defense.
Don't ask me to risk my life and the lives of my loved ones on your principles.
Why do I say a semi-automatic firearm is the best choice for me?
It takes some training to use a firearm, but not nearly as much CONSTANT training as martial arts, archery, sword, or knife fighting.
A firearm doesn't take a lot of physical strength, like the alternatives do. This means your 90 lb grandma can fight off a 250 lb steroid freak.
A firearm is a more certain deterrent than a taser or pepper spray.
You don't have to be in arm's reach of your assailant to use a firearm.
A firearm can be always ready, a criminal won't let you pick the circumstances of the fight.
A semi-automatic takes less steps to fire than a manual action.
A semi-automatic can be quickly reloaded instead of fumbling around for loose ammunition, and needs to be reloaded less often.
For all of these reasons, if semi-automatic firearms are banned, they're not going away, they're just too good at what they do.
They are an efficient and mature technology. This means criminals WILL have them.
I guarantee, somewhere out there, there is a person who would kill you for your iPhone.
Naturally when Star Trek-like phasers come along no one is going to want a firearm anymore except as history.
If people are to surrender their arms it must be done voluntarily.
History has shown how poorly prohibitions work.
We tried it in the '20s with alcohol. We tried it again with marijuana and narcotics.
To try and ban something that people want, doesn't work.
When alcohol was targeted, people set up secret stills and speakeasies, criminal gangs formed to distribute this supply to the masses.
When drugs were targeted, secret grow farms and meth labs were set up, criminal gangs formed to distribute this supply to the masses.
Chemistry-control doesn't work.
Technology-control doesn't work.
Gun-control doesn't work either.
In short People-control doesn't work.
It's all the same thing.
If you think it will, I think you're underestimating people.
The most obvious attacks I can see are:
arguing that simple possession of a <firearm they don't like> is some sort of infringement on their rights.
arguing that a manual-action firearm is just as, or more, effective.
arguing that a police force satisfies the right of self-defense.
edit: arguing that you must PROVE your worthiness to possess rights.
Thanks all.
-James
Comment