How do we keep...

Kal'Stang · Aug 31, 2018

The newest talking point of those that love gun control: Keep guns out of the wrong hands.

How do we keep guns out of the wrong hands? How exactly do you determine this? Since this is about keeping guns out of the wrong hands this requires that we identify the wrong hands before they have a chance to do harm. How is this determined?

Let me address a couple of the expected responses.

1: Keep guns away from the mentally ill: Ok. Agreed. However, it is already illegal for anyone deemed to have a mental illness to own a gun or to sell a gun to. There is also a process in which this is determined. So, this is already being done. What more can be done in this regard? Note: It HAS to be tailored to where it will not infringe on everyone else's Rights. You know, people that are not mentally ill...

2: Keep guns away from those that are criminal: This too is already done. Anyone that has been charged and convicted with a felony that merits at least 1 year in prison is barred from owning any guns. It is also illegal in pretty much every state to possess a gun while under investigation, have a restraining order due to domestic violence, and other situations. Note about this: The majority of crimes committed while in possession of a gun are crimes committed by people with rap sheets. How do you prevent these people from getting a hold of a gun when they are already legally barred from owning or even possessing a gun? UBC's? The federal government can't implement that, States can, but not the Federal Government as they do not have the power to regulate intrastate commerce. Plus people have a Right to Privacy. Add to this the fact that most people that illegally possess guns get those guns via theft or straw purchases (which are illegal already) or the black market...you're going to have your work cut out for you on this one. Even more so when 3D Printing advances enough to where people can print metal objects in their home. Which IS going to happen whether you think it will or not. History of technology shows us this.

Feel free to add to this. The end goal: Keep guns out of the wrong hands. How? What? Where? Why?

Captain Adverse · Aug 31, 2018

Kal'Stang said:
The newest talking point of those that love gun control: Keep guns out of the wrong hands.

How do we keep guns out of the wrong hands? How exactly do you determine this? Since this is about keeping guns out of the wrong hands this requires that we identify the wrong hands before they have a chance to do harm. How is this determined?

Let me address a couple of the expected responses.

1: Keep guns away from the mentally ill: Ok. Agreed. However, it is already illegal for anyone deemed to have a mental illness to own a gun or to sell a gun to. There is also a process in which this is determined. So, this is already being done. What more can be done in this regard? Note: It HAS to be tailored to where it will not infringe on everyone else's Rights. You know, people that are not mentally ill...

2: Keep guns away from those that are criminal: This too is already done. Anyone that has been charged and convicted with a felony that merits at least 1 year in prison is barred from owning any guns. It is also illegal in pretty much every state to possess a gun while under investigation, have a restraining order due to domestic violence, and other situations. Note about this: The majority of crimes committed while in possession of a gun are crimes committed by people with rap sheets. How do you prevent these people from getting a hold of a gun when they are already legally barred from owning or even possessing a gun? UBC's? The federal government can't implement that, States can, but not the Federal Government as they do not have the power to regulate intrastate commerce. Plus people have a Right to Privacy. Add to this the fact that most people that illegally possess guns get those guns via theft or straw purchases (which are illegal already) or the black market...you're going to have your work cut out for you on this one. Even more so when 3D Printing advances enough to where people can print metal objects in their home. Which IS going to happen whether you think it will or not. History of technology shows us this.

Feel free to add to this. The end goal: Keep guns out of the wrong hands. How? What? Where? Why?

The argument is always going to revolve around interpretations of what the Second Amendment "really means," and do we "really need" this Amendment any more.

To those who want to keep guns out of "the wrong hands," the idea is simple...figure out a way to keep guns out of everyone's hands who is not a serving member of the armed or police forces of the nation.

Thus the constant argument that the Second Amendment (still) only applies to an established State Militia which is no longer necessary because our government is so wonderful and powerful no one needs any form of militia anymore.

Since the SCOTUS has ruled this argument has no merit, then next steps are (1) push the limits of "regulation" that the SCOTUS decisions do allow to their fullest extreme, and (2) eventually repeal/replace the Second Amendment from the Constitution.

X Factor · Aug 31, 2018

Keeping guns out of the “wrong hands” sure sounds reasonable until you realize the only way that can truly happen is to keep them out of everyone’s hands, which is the true ultimate goal.

TurtleDude · Aug 31, 2018

most of the GCAs can be divided into two groups

1) the ignorant or stupid who really want to disarm criminals but don't mind our rights being collateral damage. These people engage in a faith based belief that restricting honest people will trickle down to impeding those already banned. While they may not intend to screw us over, they don't see it as being a bigger problem than armed criminals. These make up most of the grass roots though many of them are left-wingers who start with a basic intolerance of pro gun conservative voters.

2) the liars who only pretend criminals motivate them-they throw up the facades about public safety but they clearly are hostile to people-especially ones who don't vote like they do from owning firearms.

Xelor · Aug 31, 2018

Kal'Stang said:
The newest talking point of those that love gun control: Keep guns out of the wrong hands.

How do we keep guns out of the wrong hands? How exactly do you determine this? Since this is about keeping guns out of the wrong hands this requires that we identify the wrong hands before they have a chance to do harm. How is this determined?

Define what constitutes "the wrong hands" (aka, fitness to possess a gun) vis-a-vis gun use and gun maintenance.
- Note: "Wrong hands" will not be qualitatively binary. To wit, it may be defined as are myriad mental maladies whereof one's having manifested to varying given degrees one or more of several qualities.
Identify modes and means of determining whether a given individual possesses the "wrong hands" into which a gun be entrusted.
Establish a gun production, distribution and acquisition process (policy) that includes assessing the fitness to possess a gun of all persons who would have possession or or title to a gun. (Require periodic reassessment.)
- Quantitative model for scoring fitness -- Individuals scoring above a certain score or score range --> Deemed fit to own a gun.
- Qualitative model for scoring fitness -- Individuals scoring within a certain score range --> Evaluated more closely and a team of five evaluators (one each of psychology, cultural anthropology/sociology, criminology, economics (not business) and jurisprudential experts) agree on whether the individual is fit or not fit to own a gun. (This would happen somewhat like the double-blind peer review process.)
Define modes and means for measuring the effectiveness of the process.
- Process goal: Reduce incidence of involuntary gun deaths and injuries per lustrum
- Define quantitative methodology for measuring goal achievement.
- Identify (1) extant baseline rate of involuntary gun deaths and injuries per lustrum and (2) projected rate of increase or decrease per lustrum given the extant rate per lustrum thereof.
- Identify statistical significance based on #1 and #2 in the bullet point immediately above this one. Statistically significant reductions in the incidence of involuntary gun deaths and injuries per lustrum equate to the process' having been effective for the then ended lustrum.
Conduct a performance review every lustrum.
- Modify the assessment's administrative attributes based on the performance review.
  - Retain attributes that work; replace those that aren't with something else and see whether, come the next lustrum's review, the new approach yields better or worse results than the original one.
- Modify the fitness assessment factors and coefficients as needed based on the performance review.
  - Retain factors/coefficients that remain germane; replace those that aren't with something else, and see whether, come the next lustrum's review, the new model yields better or worse results than the original one.
- After the first review, assess whether the qualitative or quantitative fitness scoring method would have yielded better outcomes were either used without the other. If cost considerations militate so, retain the more outcome-effective of the two and discard the other.

goldkam · Aug 31, 2018

Xelor said:
Define what constitutes "the wrong hands" (aka, fitness to possess a gun) vis-a-vis gun use and gun maintenance.

Note: "Wrong hands" will not be qualitatively binary. To wit, it may be defined as are myriad mental maladies whereof one's having manifested to varying given degrees one or more of several qualities.

Identify modes and means of determining whether a given individual possesses the "wrong hands" into which a gun be entrusted.

Establish a gun production, distribution and acquisition process (policy) that includes assessing the fitness to possess a gun of all persons who would have possession or or title to a gun. (Require periodic reassessment.)

Quantitative model for scoring fitness -- Individuals scoring above a certain score or score range --> Deemed fit to own a gun.

Qualitative model for scoring fitness -- Individuals scoring within a certain score range --> Evaluated more closely and a team of five evaluators (one each of psychology, cultural anthropology/sociology, criminology, economics (not business) and jurisprudential experts) agree on whether the individual is fit or not fit to own a gun. (This would happen somewhat like the double-blind peer review process.)

Define modes and means for measuring the effectiveness of the process.

Process goal: Reduce incidence of involuntary gun deaths and injuries per lustrum

Define quantitative methodology for measuring goal achievement.

Identify (1) extant baseline rate of involuntary gun deaths and injuries per lustrum and (2) projected rate of increase or decrease per lustrum given the extant rate per lustrum thereof.

Identify statistical significance based on #1 and #2 in the bullet point immediately above this one. Statistically significant reductions in the incidence of involuntary gun deaths and injuries per lustrum equate to the process' having been effective for the then ended lustrum.

Conduct a performance review every lustrum.

Modify the assessment's administrative attributes based on the performance review.

Retain attributes that work; replace those that aren't with something else and see whether, come the next lustrum's review, the new approach yields better or worse results than the original one.

Modify the fitness assessment factors and coefficients as needed based on the performance review.

Retain factors/coefficients that remain germane; replace those that aren't with something else, and see whether, come the next lustrum's review, the new model yields better or worse results than the original one.

After the first review, assess whether the qualitative or quantitative fitness scoring method would have yielded better outcomes were either used without the other. If cost considerations militate so, retain the more outcome-effective of the two and discard the other.

Agree with most of what you stated. However theory is theory until enacted in practise the proven effectiveness is unknown. Personally firearms and average citizens in todays world don't mix, action like what occurred in Australia, UK, Japan needs to be implemented.

goldkam · Aug 31, 2018

X Factor said:
Keeping guns out of the “wrong hands” sure sounds reasonable until you realize the only way that can truly happen is to keep them out of everyone’s hands, which is the true ultimate goal.

Agree 100%. Its the truth and unfortunately the truth is unable to accepted

X Factor · Aug 31, 2018

goldkam said:
Agree with most of what you stated. However theory is theory until enacted in practise the proven effectiveness is unknown. Personally firearms and average citizens in todays world don't mix, action like what occurred in Australia, UK, Japan needs to be implemented.

And then there are some who are entirely open about supporting mass confiscation.

X Factor · Aug 31, 2018

goldkam said:
Agree 100%. Its the truth and unfortunately the truth is unable to accepted

That’s the truth of the motive/goal. Doesn’t make it right, though.

Xelor · Aug 31, 2018

goldkam said:
Agree with most of what you stated. However theory is theory until enacted in practise the proven effectiveness is unknown. Personally firearms and average citizens in todays world don't mix, action like what occurred in Australia, UK, Japan needs to be implemented.

Red:
That really isn't how theory is conceived (works) in science; what you've described applies to a hypothesis, not to a theory. That said, that the a process' efficacy does indeed need to be evaluated, which I why I included a review framework (steps 4 and 5) as part of my answer to the "red" questions to which I responded.

OlNate · Aug 31, 2018

Kal'Stang said:
The newest talking point of those that love gun control: Keep guns out of the wrong hands.

How do we keep guns out of the wrong hands? How exactly do you determine this? Since this is about keeping guns out of the wrong hands this requires that we identify the wrong hands before they have a chance to do harm. How is this determined?

Let me address a couple of the expected responses.

1: Keep guns away from the mentally ill: Ok. Agreed. However, it is already illegal for anyone deemed to have a mental illness to own a gun or to sell a gun to. There is also a process in which this is determined. So, this is already being done. What more can be done in this regard? Note: It HAS to be tailored to where it will not infringe on everyone else's Rights. You know, people that are not mentally ill...

2: Keep guns away from those that are criminal: This too is already done. Anyone that has been charged and convicted with a felony that merits at least 1 year in prison is barred from owning any guns. It is also illegal in pretty much every state to possess a gun while under investigation, have a restraining order due to domestic violence, and other situations. Note about this: The majority of crimes committed while in possession of a gun are crimes committed by people with rap sheets. How do you prevent these people from getting a hold of a gun when they are already legally barred from owning or even possessing a gun? UBC's? The federal government can't implement that, States can, but not the Federal Government as they do not have the power to regulate intrastate commerce. Plus people have a Right to Privacy. Add to this the fact that most people that illegally possess guns get those guns via theft or straw purchases (which are illegal already) or the black market...you're going to have your work cut out for you on this one. Even more so when 3D Printing advances enough to where people can print metal objects in their home. Which IS going to happen whether you think it will or not. History of technology shows us this.

Feel free to add to this. The end goal: Keep guns out of the wrong hands. How? What? Where? Why?

Honestly, the only thing I can think of is to close up the loopholes in private gun sales.

The existing laws are more than fine - in fact, if the law is that people with ANY mental health issues can't have guns, I'd say that's too arbitrary. I have wicked bad anxiety, but am no threat to anyone. There's a mile of difference between treated and untreated. But, if you have private gun sellers that aren't paying attention to those laws, and you don't want a registry to track the gun (understandable), then you need to work on the problematic areas another way.

I'm not sure I have a complete solution to this...I have ideas, but they are probably wrong, me being brought up in Canadian gun culture, not American (which means that certain things would be tolerable and unrestricting to me, but probably not to you guys - I don't assume). But I think it's what responsible, law abiding gun owners and advocates need to figure out. It's really the only gap I see.

chuckiechan · Aug 31, 2018

Kal'Stang said:
The newest talking point of those that love gun control: Keep guns out of the wrong hands.

How do we keep guns out of the wrong hands? How exactly do you determine this? Since this is about keeping guns out of the wrong hands this requires that we identify the wrong hands before they have a chance to do harm. How is this determined?

Let me address a couple of the expected responses.

1: Keep guns away from the mentally ill: Ok. Agreed. However, it is already illegal for anyone deemed to have a mental illness to own a gun or to sell a gun to. There is also a process in which this is determined. So, this is already being done. What more can be done in this regard? Note: It HAS to be tailored to where it will not infringe on everyone else's Rights. You know, people that are not mentally ill...

2: Keep guns away from those that are criminal: This too is already done. Anyone that has been charged and convicted with a felony that merits at least 1 year in prison is barred from owning any guns. It is also illegal in pretty much every state to possess a gun while under investigation, have a restraining order due to domestic violence, and other situations. Note about this: The majority of crimes committed while in possession of a gun are crimes committed by people with rap sheets. How do you prevent these people from getting a hold of a gun when they are already legally barred from owning or even possessing a gun? UBC's? The federal government can't implement that, States can, but not the Federal Government as they do not have the power to regulate intrastate commerce. Plus people have a Right to Privacy. Add to this the fact that most people that illegally possess guns get those guns via theft or straw purchases (which are illegal already) or the black market...you're going to have your work cut out for you on this one. Even more so when 3D Printing advances enough to where people can print metal objects in their home. Which IS going to happen whether you think it will or not. History of technology shows us this.

Feel free to add to this. The end goal: Keep guns out of the wrong hands. How? What? Where? Why?

We don't have the constitutional prerogatives to do it. All we can do is try to is get a sense of the crazy people's intentions and notify authorities. When someone shoots up a school, many saw it coming and they did nothing - probably they were afraid of being sued, called a racist or a bigot, or an alarmist. If you are wrong, social media will eat you alive and there will be ten lawyers lined up to sue you.

We are not going to ban guns because that leaves us powerless against crime and technically government. It is a problem that will never be solved unless the Constitution is re interpreted, and even if it is the guns will not be turned in. If my back was to the wall, illegally, I would dump them in the river so as to make them "Unaccountable" to the government.

We can't stop a free people from doing lots of things they are doing.

Rucker61 · Aug 31, 2018

OlNate said:
Honestly, the only thing I can think of is to close up the loopholes in private gun sales.

One, there are no loopholes in private sales. The Brady Act works exactly as the Democrats who wrote it, voted for it and signed it wanted it to. Two, background checks on private sales, or UBCs, are unenforceable without comprehensive registration according the the 2010 DOJ report "Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies". We know that a UBC won't stop bad guns selling to bad guys. We know that good guys selling to good guys doesn't harm society. The best we could hope for is that it helps good guys to identify bad guys so they won't sell to them. Direct access to NICS would provide that tool. The DOJ also mentioned that an easy gun transfer process would be necessary for an effective UBC, and the more obstacles in the way of a transfer, the fewer good guys will bother about using that process. Fees, travel, limited access to FFLs: all of these, part of the standard UBC process, cut down on the number of good guys using the UBC. Direct access removes these obstacles.

The existing laws are more than fine - in fact, if the law is that people with ANY mental health issues can't have guns, I'd say that's too arbitrary. I have wicked bad anxiety, but am no threat to anyone. There's a mile of difference between treated and untreated. But, if you have private gun sellers that aren't paying attention to those laws, and you don't want a registry to track the gun (understandable), then you need to work on the problematic areas another way.

I'm not sure I have a complete solution to this...I have ideas, but they are probably wrong, me being brought up in Canadian gun culture, not American (which means that certain things would be tolerable and unrestricting to me, but probably not to you guys - I don't assume). But I think it's what responsible, law abiding gun owners and advocates need to figure out. It's really the only gap I see.

I've seen law abiding gun owners and advocates try to work with rabid GCAs here in Colorado in 2013, as they live streamed the legislative proceedings. The GCAs had the bit in their teeth and wouldn't listen to anyone on the pro-gun side with any reasonable suggestion. I wouldn't expect to seen any better results at the national level. If the Democrats have the votes, they'll impose new laws willy nilly without any regard to Constitutionality, effectiveness or enforceability.

OlNate · Aug 31, 2018

Rucker61 said:
One, there are no loopholes in private sales. The Brady Act works exactly as the Democrats who wrote it, voted for it and signed it wanted it to. Two, background checks on private sales, or UBCs, are unenforceable without comprehensive registration according the the 2010 DOJ report "Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies". We know that a UBC won't stop bad guns selling to bad guys. We know that good guys selling to good guys doesn't harm society. The best we could hope for is that it helps good guys to identify bad guys so they won't sell to them. Direct access to NICS would provide that tool. The DOJ also mentioned that an easy gun transfer process would be necessary for an effective UBC, and the more obstacles in the way of a transfer, the fewer good guys will bother about using that process. Fees, travel, limited access to FFLs: all of these, part of the standard UBC process, cut down on the number of good guys using the UBC. Direct access removes these obstacles.

I've seen law abiding gun owners and advocates try to work with rabid GCAs here in Colorado in 2013, as they live streamed the legislative proceedings. The GCAs had the bit in their teeth and wouldn't listen to anyone on the pro-gun side with any reasonable suggestion. I wouldn't expect to seen any better results at the national level. If the Democrats have the votes, they'll impose new laws willy nilly without any regard to Constitutionality, effectiveness or enforceability.

Thanks for clearing all that up, man...I'll use this going forward, thanks. As I said, I'm Canadian, so I'm not aware of all the ins and outs, this was the one area where I saw potential risk (should have said risk instead of loophole). To be clear I wasn't necessarily suggesting to do away with private gun sales, just that there may be potential to put in some more layers of defense re: the OP. And of course, there is no snap-your-fingers easy solution...hopefully I made that clear as well. All I'm saying is that given the existing laws, as laid out in the OP, the only real area to improve the odds of guns not falling into the wrong hands appears to be in the realm of private sales, that's all

As for sit downs with the "rabid GCA crowd", I'm not saying you should. You don't need everyone to agree with you, just the majority. And if you demonstrate good self governance and a commitment to public safety (something that I believe is already happening at the NRA), then you'll have that support. Let the fringes scream into the wind, while the adults get this sorted out, would be my advice from up here.

Rucker61 · Aug 31, 2018

OlNate said:
Thanks for clearing all that up, man...I'll use this going forward, thanks. As I said, I'm Canadian, so I'm not aware of all the ins and outs, this was the one area where I saw potential risk (should have said risk instead of loophole). To be clear I wasn't necessarily suggesting to do away with private gun sales, just that there may be potential to put in some more layers of defense re: the OP. And of course, there is no snap-your-fingers easy solution...hopefully I made that clear as well. All I'm saying is that given the existing laws, as laid out in the OP, the only real area to improve the odds of guns not falling into the wrong hands appears to be in the realm of private sales, that's all

"Private sales" includes deliberate criminal activity like straw purchases/sales and criminal to criminal sales, and these account for the majority of guns in criminals' hands. UBCs won't affect these. I do believe that if we had a direct access to NICS process that we could really cut down on good guy to prohibited persons sales. The problem with UBCs as implemented in some US states is that they are internally inconsistent, unenforceable and force fees on law abiding citizens to exercise a right. For instance, in Colorado, I can give or loan a gun to an immediate family member without a BCG, but if I sell it to them they need a BCG. If a multi-member trust has a firearm added to the trust, every member has to pass a background check, even low the risk of a criminal deliberately linking their name to any gun in a legal document like a trust is minuscule at best. If I loan a gun to a friend who has a CCW or is a cop to use in a week long marksmanship training course, he has to have a BCG (and I need one to get my own gun back), but I can loan a gun for up to three days to anyone that I don't know for sure is a prohibited person. It's stuff like this that drives GRAs crazy. In the five years we've had the law, there have been three arrests for violating it, and all in conjunction with other more serious charges.

As for sit downs with the "rabid GCA crowd", I'm not saying you should. You don't need everyone to agree with you, just the majority. And if you demonstrate good self governance and a commitment to public safety (something that I believe is already happening at the NRA), then you'll have that support. Let the fringes scream into the wind, while the adults get this sorted out, would be my advice from up here.

It's that vocal minority that get all the air time. Everyone wants reasonable gun control, we just disagree on what "reasonable" should entail.

OlNate · Aug 31, 2018

Rucker61 said:
"Private sales" includes deliberate criminal activity like straw purchases/sales and criminal to criminal sales, and these account for the majority of guns in criminals' hands. UBCs won't affect these. I do believe that if we had a direct access to NICS process that we could really cut down on good guy to prohibited persons sales. The problem with UBCs as implemented in some US states is that they are internally inconsistent, unenforceable and force fees on law abiding citizens to exercise a right. For instance, in Colorado, I can give or loan a gun to an immediate family member without a BCG, but if I sell it to them they need a BCG. If a multi-member trust has a firearm added to the trust, every member has to pass a background check, even low the risk of a criminal deliberately linking their name to any gun in a legal document like a trust is minuscule at best. If I loan a gun to a friend who has a CCW or is a cop to use in a week long marksmanship training course, he has to have a BCG (and I need one to get my own gun back), but I can loan a gun for up to three days to anyone that I don't know for sure is a prohibited person. It's stuff like this that drives GRAs crazy. In the five years we've had the law, there have been three arrests for violating it, and all in conjunction with other more serious charges.

It's that vocal minority that get all the air time. Everyone wants reasonable gun control, we just disagree on what "reasonable" should entail.

I have to defer to your experience, man...again, it's a different culture up here regarding guns, and one that involves a lot more compromise...but the mindset is completely different as well. That's not a suggestion of superiority, by the way, just an acknowledgement of what makes us different, and why it's hard for me to put myself in your shoes to the point of being able to make suggestions that would be palatably by anyone.

It's just easy to see that unconstitutional / unrealistic blanket bans or gun control measures that no one will buy into doesn't do much in the way of protecting the public or reducing gun deaths. As to what WILL work, that's kind of your business...hehe...if that makes sense.

Again, thanks for the insights.

goldkam · Aug 31, 2018

X Factor said:
And then there are some who are entirely open about supporting mass confiscation.

I am unsure if you are aware of the policies or effectiveness of the policies implemented in these countries, obviously you are not but gun deaths and gun crime in stark comparison to the USA are significantly lower. Research and correlation between the two are proven and accepted by societies as a whole in these countries.

I would prefer to term it the implementation of policies for the greater good of society not the erratic, reactionary solutions that so many pose like "lets give more guns", "lets give the teachers guns", "guns are for self protection"

goldkam · Aug 31, 2018

X Factor said:
That’s the truth of the motive/goal. Doesn’t make it right, though.

Who defines what is "right" in this whole debate? Shouldn't it be the majority of society...politicians, law makers??

Rucker61 · Aug 31, 2018

goldkam said:
Who defines what is "right" in this whole debate? Shouldn't it be the majority of society...politicians, law makers??

That's not how rights work.

goldkam · Aug 31, 2018

Xelor said:
Red:
That really isn't how theory is conceived (works) in science; what you've described applies to a hypothesis, not to a theory. That said, that the a process' efficacy does indeed need to be evaluated, which I why I included a review framework (steps 4 and 5) as part of my answer to the "red" questions to which I responded.

Not getting to technical in relation to scientific terms/definitions. The proven effectiveness of such steps is unknown until actually enacted, as you mentioned this is the evaluative process.

goldkam · Aug 31, 2018

Rucker61 said:
That's not how rights work.

There is a difference between what is "right" (like right and wrong) which I was talking about and rights (the rights of a person)

Rights in the basic sense should belong to all people and thus be able to be enjoyed by all people, however the availability of rights also "should" take into account the actions and climate in modern day society.

Rucker61 · Aug 31, 2018

goldkam said:
There is a difference between what is "right" (like right and wrong) which I was talking about and rights (the rights of a person)

Rights in the basic sense should belong to all people and thus be able to be enjoyed by all people, however the availability of rights also "should" take into account the actions and climate in modern day society.

If government is free to restrict rights based on actions and climate of society, they aren't rights. They're privileges.

goldkam · Aug 31, 2018

Rucker61 said:
If government is free to restrict rights based on actions and climate of society, they aren't rights. They're privileges.

True in some respects. Such a grey area in some cases. Rights today include right to free speech and freedom from discrimination. The government limits right to free speech because of the bounds of anti-discrimination, respect, dignity and morality. Yet it remains a right.

To extend this further to the gun debate. The government and the courts of law regulate the right to bear arms, thus it comes under the "privilege" banner. Meaning a privilege can be taken away and society doesn't necessarily have claim over its inherent or indivisible nature.

UtahBill · Aug 31, 2018

goldkam said:
Not getting to technical in relation to scientific terms/definitions. The proven effectiveness of such steps is unknown until actually enacted, as you mentioned this is the evaluative process.

Meaning take all the guns and see if it works? No, thanks....that is just an end run, a corrupt govt can do anything it wants once the population is disarmed.

Rucker61 · Aug 31, 2018

goldkam said:
True in some respects. Such a grey area in some cases. Rights today include right to free speech and freedom from discrimination. The government limits right to free speech because of the bounds of anti-discrimination, respect, dignity and morality. Yet it remains a right.

What speech regarding the bounds of anti-discrimination, respect, dignity and morality does the government restrict?

To extend this further to the gun debate. The government and the courts of law regulate the right to bear arms, thus it comes under the "privilege" banner. Meaning a privilege can be taken away and society doesn't necessarily have claim over its inherent or indivisible nature.

No, they've ruled that the right isn't completely unrestricted. There are still limits on what restrictions are allowed, and that's what the right protects.

How do we keep...

Kal'Stang

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage

X Factor

Anti-Socialist

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Xelor

goldkam

goldkam

X Factor

Anti-Socialist

X Factor

Anti-Socialist

Xelor

OlNate

Shameless Canuck

chuckiechan

Rucker61

OlNate

Shameless Canuck

Rucker61

OlNate

Shameless Canuck

goldkam

goldkam

Rucker61

goldkam

goldkam

Rucker61

goldkam

UtahBill

Rucker61