In a dangerous world, is the right to arm oneself a basic human right? Would it not make sense that a man should be able to arm himself equally as well as those who would do him and his family harm, regardless if those people respect the law? Should there be limitations to how well someone can arm themselves? If the items being limited are already exceedingly simple, common and available, would this make any difference to those with no regard for the law?

no, in the same way that the right to drive an automobile is not a basic human right

it's a privilege that has to be worked for, and can be taken away

Quote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 12:43:48 PM

no, in the same way that the right to drive an automobile is not a basic human right

it's a privilege that has to be worked for, and can be taken away

So if I'm a caveman and a rival tribe has sharp rocks and is regularly raping and killing people from my tribe, I can't get my own sharp rock and defend myself and my family because my tribal leaders say so? I specifically mean the ability to arm oneself regardless of what age or state of technology.

you are now talking about the right to defend yourself, which is a different subject

the fact that we do not allow just anyone to drive has not hindered society in any way, imagine that

Quote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 12:51:33 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 12:43:48 PM

no, in the same way that the right to drive an automobile is not a basic human right

it's a privilege that has to be worked for, and can be taken away

So if I'm a caveman and a rival tribe has sharp rocks and is regularly raping and killing people from my tribe, I can't get my own sharp rock and defend myself and my family because my tribal leaders say so? I specifically mean the ability to arm oneself regardless of what age or state of technology.

you are now talking about the right to defend yourself, which is a different subject

Defending yourself from those that are armed without being armed yourself almost certainly results in bodily harm or death.

Quote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 12:52:35 PM

Quote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 12:51:33 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 12:43:48 PM

no, in the same way that the right to drive an automobile is not a basic human right

it's a privilege that has to be worked for, and can be taken away

So if I'm a caveman and a rival tribe has sharp rocks and is regularly raping and killing people from my tribe, I can't get my own sharp rock and defend myself and my family because my tribal leaders say so? I specifically mean the ability to arm oneself regardless of what age or state of technology.

you are now talking about the right to defend yourself, which is a different subject

Defending yourself from those that are armed without being armed yourself almost certainly results in bodily harm or death.

still a better outcome than allowing any fucknut to carry a projectile weapon

it's pretty asinine to compare rocks to guns, by the way, or to assume that good and responsible people still wouldn't be armed (the same way good and responsible people drive cars)

Quote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 12:56:54 PM

Quote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 12:55:25 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 12:52:35 PM

Quote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 12:51:33 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 12:43:48 PM

no, in the same way that the right to drive an automobile is not a basic human right

it's a privilege that has to be worked for, and can be taken away

So if I'm a caveman and a rival tribe has sharp rocks and is regularly raping and killing people from my tribe, I can't get my own sharp rock and defend myself and my family because my tribal leaders say so? I specifically mean the ability to arm oneself regardless of what age or state of technology.

you are now talking about the right to defend yourself, which is a different subject

Defending yourself from those that are armed without being armed yourself almost certainly results in bodily harm or death.

still a better outcome than allowing any fucknut to carry a projectile weapon

it's pretty asinine to compare rocks to guns, by the way

So you'd prefer rape and murder possibly with illegal projectile weapons so the perpetrators of such can't get their hands on them because they obey the law?

okay, don't be fucking stupid

my entire thesis (that i've stated repeatedly) is that owning guns is like driving cars, in that it's a privilege, not a right

that means you can still easily get your hands on weapons if you've jumped through the necessary hoops like a responsible adult, it's just not your godgiven right in the same exact way that driving isn't your god given right

and since millions of people still drive, millions of people would still own guns

just because something isn't a basic human right doesn't mean it's banned completely

i mean ultimately if i had a button that destroyed all guns and prevented anything similar from ever being created or used again, then i would press it instantly

in fact, i'd smash wayne lapierre's face against it

that's my ideal, no guns whatsoever, fuck you

never gonna happen though, so i have to try to discuss reality

Quote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 12:56:24 PM

Quote from: Flee on March 01, 2018, 12:52:58 PM

Quote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 12:35:39 PM

In a dangerous world, is the right to arm oneself a basic human right? Would it not make sense that a man should be able to arm himself equally as well as those who would do him and his family harm, regardless if those people respect the law? Should there be limitations to how well someone can arm themselves? If the items being limited are already exceedingly simple, common and available, would this make any difference to those with no regard for the law?

I'd consider self defense a basic human right, but not the entitlement to a specific method of doing so. No, it doesn't make sense. Yes, there should be limitations. Yes, it would and does make a difference.

Care to elaborate on specifically what makes a difference? And how it doesn't make sense? So I can only defend myself in a specific way? Basic human rights conform to the law?

I was just going over your questions in order. It's gun regulations that can and do make a difference. I just made a post explaining this in the Serious thread. What you said doesn't make all that much sense because you're ignoring the fact that you'd also supply "the bad guys" with more and more ways of harming your family in a battle you can't win. And I didn't say anything about basic rights conforming to the law. I'm saying that I don't think think that owning guns is a basic human right.

I don't think adding regulations to devices that are already in the hands of criminals will affect them much at all, so not adding the regulations wouldn't make a difference either. The ability to arm oneself covers more than just guns in my mind.
EDIT: When I ask what regulations, I meant specific laws.

Quote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 01:11:36 PM

i mean ultimately if i had a button that destroyed all guns and prevented anything similar from ever being created or used again, then i would press it instantly

in fact, i'd smash wayne lapierre's face against it

that's my ideal, no guns whatsoever, fuck you

never gonna happen though, so i have to try to discuss reality

I think banning a simple mechanical concept would be nigh impossible. Even regulating it is exceedingly difficult. You can actually easily manufacture a submachine gun, from materials you can buy at a hardware store (P.A. Luty). The law can only do so much to control what people do in their own homes.

Most people don't have the drive or knowledge to actually do that.

Instead they just go to the store and buy one.

I think banning a simple mechanical concept would be nigh impossible. Even regulating it is exceedingly difficult. You can actually easily manufacture a submachine gun, from materials you can buy at a hardware store (P.A. Luty). The law can only do so much to control what people do in their own homes.

i already agreed that it's impossible, i'm just describing how things would be in my perfect world

so when i tell you that there would still be millions of good people owning guns under stricter gun control policy and 2A repeal, you know it's coming from a person who would ultimately get rid of all guns if he had it his way

in other words, i'm not allowing my personal bias against guns affect how i view guns in the real world

we're never getting rid of guns, but that doesn't mean we can't limit public access to them
and limiting public access doesn't necessarily mean giving criminals more power, it's quite the opposite

Quote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 01:25:55 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 01:11:36 PM

i mean ultimately if i had a button that destroyed all guns and prevented anything similar from ever being created or used again, then i would press it instantly

in fact, i'd smash wayne lapierre's face against it

that's my ideal, no guns whatsoever, fuck you

never gonna happen though, so i have to try to discuss reality

I think banning a simple mechanical concept would be nigh impossible. Even regulating it is exceedingly difficult. You can actually easily manufacture a submachine gun, from materials you can buy at a hardware store (P.A. Luty). The law can only do so much to control what people do in their own homes.

"Easily".

>"viewers should not assume that these homemade firearms are easy to produce"
>"they remain quite sophisticated pieces of engineering and true craft-produced weapons"
>"they require considerably skill to replicate"
>"manufacturers must also obtain quantities of suitable ammunition"
>"criminals in the UK do not appear to have made any great use of them"

http://armamentresearch.com/pa-luty-9mm-submachine-guns/

Home-made firearms are at this point still a very poor argument against regulations.

The point I was trying to make that outlawing a mechanical concept is not possible. In that post I was not attacking regulations. I was only saying what I believed to be their limit.

Rights are not something that can be amended. We are entitled by them by our own existence.

you see no danger or folly in allowing men who lived two and a half centuries ago tell you what your basic rights are

Quote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 01:53:55 PM

Rights are not something that can be amended. We are entitled by them by our own existence.

you see no danger or folly in allowing men who lived two and a half centuries ago tell you what your basic rights are

They did pretty well if you ask me. They didn't cover everything, but I'm glad what they did cover is law.