Three Men Arrested After Buying Gun At Gun Show In OKC

[henschman]

Natural, inalienable and inherent.... ok, so felons, mentally ill, and third graders should be able to buy guns at will? Do you truly believe that there should be zero restrictions? ZERO?

That was a direct question, in case you didn't catch that.

No. When you say "restrictions," you are talking about people being threatened with force for certain behavior. I am saying that no one should be threatened with force unless they are themselves threatening the rights of others. In other words, force can only legitimately be used in defense, and may never be initiated. This is a basic principle of morality called the non-aggression principle. It is a principle that is made necessary by the requirements of man's survival... in other words, by the nature of reality. This is what I mean when I refer to rights as "natural."

I do believe there is a certain class of individual who is so deranged that their mere act of possessing a firearm constitutes a threat to the rights of others. I do not believe that the entire class of people labeled felons by the government is co-extensive with this class. Even if it was, a prior restraint on the right to bear arms, like a background check requirement, would still violate the non-aggression principle, because it threatens force against many people who are not threatening others in any way.

 

[uncle money bags]

This thread is still going?

Yup. Now with more butthurt than ever.

 

[henschman]

in the end all that has been said is A. keep freedoms or B. Less Freedom for false Safety.

Simple and to the point. It would be hard to put it any better than that.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!!!! You DO have a 1st Amendment right to free speech, but you CANNOT yell "Fire" in a crowded theater! Rights do come with certain responsibilities concerning their exercise. If you choose not to believe that, I see no point in continuing this dialogue.

I think it is a semantic difference. Using words under such circumstances as to purposefully cause a commotion that directly and proximately causes bodily harm to someone (aside from the issue of whether the stated act actually rises to this level) would be a violation of your duty to leave the other person alone to freely exercise their right to be free from bodily harm. If it is a violation of anyone's rights, it cannot be considered part of your own rights. This example doesn't illustrate any sort of duty other than the one I mentioned -- the duty to leave others alone to freely exercise their rights.

In case you can't tell, my concept of rights does not in any way depend on scribblings on parchment, or the pronouncements of government functionaries, no matter how fancy of a hat/badge/arm band/robe they are wearing.