<p>Does our system not guarantee Life as an unalienable right? Or have we shifted to far away from the Enlightenment values for that to be relevant?</p>
<p>A world in which my right to life is nonexistent would be a very scary place indeed. If the government has no responsibility to protect my well-being, my safety, my /life/, the most fundamental aspect of my being, what kind of social contract is that?</p>
<p>wow, what happened to teh unalienable rights - to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? i’d like to think that i’m worth something ; and also, what are we gonna do about the 2nd amendment? Repeal it?
and it’s not like there won’t be consequences for people who run around with guns</p>
<p>goddammit wink, ya beat me to it</p>
<p>“you’re saying that only those who can survive by chance or ability are allowed the rights that you defend.”
I’m not defending any rights, disney. I’m saying i would like for us all to have the ability to own guns because it is my belief that this would be best. i do not believe we have a right to own a gun because rights do not exist.</p>
<p>i think the whole constitution and all that needs to be looked at in it’s original context and then applied to our current situation as closely as possible</p>
<p>hudson if no one has rights then we are living in a free for all with a government as a pretense alone. if have no rights than most of our laws are not to be heeded.</p>
<p>What is “the right to life”? What does that even mean?</p>
<p>So mentally unstable, possibly violent people should be allowed to own guns, Donny? It seems like you’re kind of asking for trouble there.</p>
<p>D-Yu</p>
<p>Well, if we consider a loose interpretation of the Constitution and that it needs to be changed and adapted with the times, there is no reason why gun control (I hate that term) shoud be considered illegal.</p>
<p>The 2nd amendment specifically states a “militia” as the reasoning behind the right to bear arms, which is not truly relevant anymore. Remember that some people are already denied this right: minors, ex-convicts, etc.</p>
<p>Allowing the “right” for any psycho to buy an AK-47 is not only stupid, it’s dangerous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But we live in a political system where there are rights. Whether or not they are philosophically existent is irrelevant because people are seeking permission from the government to own guns. The government would sum up your view as the “right” to own guns.</p>
<p>Using your argument, I could just as easily say that there should be no government at all because it stops people from using all of their resources to do whatever they want.</p>
<p>In a practical sense, we cannot ignore the role of government and politics in this issue, and must thus accept the existence of rights.</p>
<p>i don’t think Ak-47’s are up for sale anyways, unless by black market, where gun control is obsolete anyways. i don’t think they’re counted as “conventional guns” . generally you can’t buy one of the most popular terrorist automatic weapon legally</p>
<p>if it really comes down to security, you don’t have to have a gun. get a taser or go Crocodile Dundee with a massive knife :)</p>
<p>hmm… maybe i shouldn’t put a smiley face right after the word “knife”. people might be doubting elmo’s sanity</p>
<p>oo dont call them terrorist weapons elmo. i sure there are tons of gangsters running around with them too.</p>
<p>and hudson maybe i dont honestly have it, but to me the right to life is being about to grow up and live and if i am killed by any means beyond nature or my owns hand that someone will suffer the consequences for doing something wrong.for taking away something they didnt have the justification to.
(really hard not to use the word “right”)</p>
<p>You’ve summed up perfectly, my view of government, disney. I think it causes more trouble than its worth.</p>
<p>“The government would sum up your view as the “right” to own guns.”
Could you elaborate this point for me? It doesn’t make sense to me.</p>
<p>gangsters, terrorists… you know what i meant.</p>
<p>The sale of AK-47s is more regulated than most guns, but still legal in many states. But there are also a lot of “civilian” varieties of AK-47-like semi-automatic rifles that are freely available in most states.</p>
<p>And regardless, should any random guy just be allowed to buy a killing tool like that, AK-47 or not? Like Panic said, we have to be tested before we get a license to drive to assure that we are unlikely to kill anyone in the process. Why not a psychological test before we purchase a gun, a deadly weapon with not purpose but to KILL?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I mean simply that, viewed from the government’s perspective, you are arguing for the “right to own guns.” Hmm… I don’t really know how else to say this. A politician would phrase your argument as a position in favor of protecting the right to own guns.</p>
<p>Aww, Donny’s an anarchist.
Are you the type who believes in it theoretically or do you think it would work?</p>
<p>and hudson being government-less is just not an option. though i do share your viewpoint for some of their actions, it is just not feasible.</p>
<p>yes but anarchy doesnt work either donny.</p>
<p>“being about to grow up and live and if i am killed by any means beyond nature or my owns hand that someone will suffer the consequences for doing something wrong”
I agree with you, mls. This ideal is what we should aspire to, but it is not a right, because rights do not exist.</p>
<p>i didn’t know that you could even buy AK 47’s legally. some people (aka male chauvinists) would be offended at having to pass a test just to own a gun.</p>
<p>“Just” to own a gun?</p>
<p>Oh, disney! I accidentally put emphasis on “the government” when I first read your post.
In essence, I thought you were saying that the government was an inanimate object when you were really using it as the subject of the sentence. This is really hard to describe in type, but I understand.</p>