• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What It's Like To Own Guns...

Information Analyst said:
Making storage facilities open for inspection by the police is presumably a condition of getting a firearms licence in Australia, same as it is in the UK. In that context it's not "unreasonable," nor I suspect would it count as a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Click to expand...
It would definitely be unconstitutional in the USA, it is a right here not a licensed privilege.
 
cullennz said:
It is their right as per the 2nd amendment
Click to expand...


Indeed. If owning a firearm is a right, every American should be granted a weapon for free. I mean, everyone has the right to free speech without having to pay any sum of money to a private business. They don't need to buy it; they just have it, whether they want it or not.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Indeed. If owning a firearm is a right, every American should be granted a weapon for free. I mean, everyone has the right to free speech without having to pay any sum of money to a private business. They don't need to buy it; they just have it, whether they want it or not.
Click to expand...


This line of reasoning is entirely fallacious. The right is to be able to keep and bear arms, which like the freedom of religion doesn't mean you must have one. You can if you want.


------------------

As for OP, it's the opinion of one very well off gun owner and doesn't actually address the vast majority of criticism of applying Australian like restrictions to the US. It does however show that guns aren't all illegal there, and people can still get them if they really want and have the resources to deal with it all. It's very useful for clearing up some misconceptions.

The 'is self-defense a valid reason' discussion isn't changed by this at all. Some people vastly overestimate the usefulness while underestimating the limitations of guns as tools for defense, while others continue to vastly underestimate the usefulness and overestimate the limitations.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Indeed. If owning a firearm is a right, every American should be granted a weapon for free.
Click to expand...

You may think you're being insightful here, but all you are doing is demonstrating your own ignorance about the difference between positive and negative rights.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Indeed. If owning a firearm is a right, every American should be granted a weapon for free. I mean, everyone has the right to free speech without having to pay any sum of money to a private business. They don't need to buy it; they just have it, whether they want it or not.
Click to expand...
Having a home is a right but I don't think society should buy everyone a house. You have a right to own a gun in America if you are law abiding and have no history of insanity or severe mental disorder.

You have the right to work and buy the gun with your own money.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Indeed. If owning a firearm is a right, every American should be granted a weapon for free. I mean, everyone has the right to free speech without having to pay any sum of money to a private business. They don't need to buy it; they just have it, whether they want it or not.
Click to expand...

What an utterly bizarre attempt at a reductio.
 
cullennz said:
You think people should feel pride for killing a human being?
Click to expand...

Yes, if the human being killed was unlawfully trying to harm other non-harm intending humans, then yes, certainly, of course. Not limited to but including the shooter of course.
 
tyr_13 said:
This line of reasoning is entirely fallacious. The right is to be able to keep and bear arms, which like the freedom of religion doesn't mean you must have one. You can if you want.


------------------

As for OP, it's the opinion of one very well off gun owner and doesn't actually address the vast majority of criticism of applying Australian like restrictions to the US. It does however show that guns aren't all illegal there, and people can still get them if they really want and have the resources to deal with it all. It's very useful for clearing up some misconceptions.

The 'is self-defense a valid reason' discussion isn't changed by this at all. Some people vastly overestimate the usefulness while underestimating the limitations of guns as tools for defense, while others continue to vastly underestimate the usefulness and overestimate the limitations.
Click to expand...
No.

The right is to bear arms.

They should be given them
 
Cainkane1 said:
Having a home is a right but I don't think society should buy everyone a house. You have a right to own a gun in America if you are law abiding and have no history of insanity or severe mental disorder.

You have the right to work and buy the gun with your own money.
Click to expand...
Having a home isn't a right
 
fuelair said:
Yes, if the human being killed was unlawfully trying to harm other non-harm intending humans, then yes, certainly, of course. Not limited to but including the shooter of course.
Click to expand...
Cool. Don't agree but there you go
 
cullennz said:
No.

The right is to bear arms.

They should be given them
Click to expand...

Doubling down on your ignorance isn't helping you. Again, negative rights versus positive rights. There is no excuse for your continued confusion.
 
cullennz said:
So you don't have the arbitary right to bear arms?
Click to expand...

I've told you twice now that the critical distinction here is between positive and negative rights. Had you bothered to look up those terms, you would have figured out your mistake. You are clearly a slow learner. Let's see if you'll do it after the third time.

I'll even give you a hint this time, to make it easy for you: you're treating the right to bear arms as a positive right, but it's a negative right.
 
I'm still waiting for my free printing press, and I'm not sure if I just get followers for my religion or a free church buiulding too.
 
Ziggurat said:
I've told you twice now that the critical distinction here is between positive and negative rights. Had you bothered to look up those terms, you would have figured out your mistake. You are clearly a slow learner. Let's see if you'll do it after the third time.

I'll even give you a hint this time, to make it easy for you: you're treating the right to bear arms as a positive right, but it's a negative right.
Click to expand...
A right is a right
 
Pup said:
I'm still waiting for my free printing press, and I'm not sure if I just get followers for my religion or a free church buiulding too.
Click to expand...
Does the constitution give you a right to bear a printer?
 
cullennz said:
Does the constitution give you a right to bear a printer?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. See Minneapolis star tribune v. Commissioner.

Also grosjean v. American press co.

Which are also the cases that mean you can kiss goodbye any scheme to over tax guns or ammo.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom