How about zoning? If you really own your own property how can anyone else tell you what to do with it?
Example 2. We value life so much that we are willing to risk other (innocent) people's lives to protect our own. Associated statement: We are responsible gun owners who reject commensurate responsibility for "accidentally" taking said lives with a lethal weapon carried specifically because that's what its purpose is.
How bout this one = Example 3, Thou shall not murder (Exodus 20:13) but yet we Christians overwhelmingly support the death penalty (state sponsored murder)
wwwhunter, FE asked for examples of hypocrisy. I gave one+. He didn't say it couldn't be a generalization (his was, after all), and I never said mine wasn't. So, if you disagree with stand-your-ground laws, with bringing guns into schools, bars, churches, etc., if you think that "accidentally" being shot to death is not really any better than being "intentionally" shot to death, then this example of hypocrisy probably does not apply to you.
Next Example: “We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration.” - Barack Obama - we all know what an utter failure this has been.
Pretty funny comments, guys; amazing how your eyes/ears/brains/whatever simply shut down as soon as someone expresses an opinion about guns that isn't completely worshipful.
So I doubt that this will even register with you, watchgator, but I "harp on" the "accidental" shooting part because it's such a vivid example of hypocrisy: 'I should be allowed to do anything to protect my life (and health, and stuff), including taking your life, even if you weren't actually threatening my life, health, or stuff.' 'I'm a responsible gun owner, but accidents happen, you know? That's the price you pay for my peace of mind!' They wrap their rants in patriotic, well-regulated militia, Second Amendment blather, but their unwillingness to accept responsibility for the potential consequences of their actions sure makes it seem like they're motivated by pure craven selfishness.
To be perfectly clear (and this may or may not represent the views of most non-gun-fanatics), I couldn't care less if you want to own guns. I'm even fine with your taking said lethal weapon to public places, where I and my family might be, as long as you FULLY understand and accept the enormous responsibility this places on you. That means that the consequences for incorrectly taking someone else's life with that weapon will be profound, whether or not you "meant" to do so. This SHOULD be easy to understand, given that you're carrying the gun because you value your own life/health/stuff so much...
Guys those are some good examples and yes I'm even talking to you Scindapsus. BTW I like the vast majority of gun owners are fully aware of what carrying and using a firearm could mean so you should feel safe with me on the street!
F_E, I wish I had more confidence in that last statement. Let me ask you this; by how much would you weaken this statement: "The only legal defense against a criminal homicide charge against a person who shoots and kills another is that the victim in fact intended to inflict lethal harm"?
In some sense I guess it's about putting your money where your mouth is, and about make sure that people are very confident of their skills in assessing chaotic situations and using firearms under those sorts of situations before exposing others to risk. Sure, the risk currently may be small, but if I should face a small risk of being 'accidentally' shot to death, why shouldn't you face the exact same small risk of being charged with criminal homicide for it?
FE, Yes, millions of gun enthusiasts are responsible.But it is the irresponsible ones that we have to worry about.The recent failure of gun control legislation and the spate of stand-your-ground laws now in place would suggest that politicians have been very deferential to gun enthusiasts.I do not see evidence of persecution or even the remotest chance that gun ownership will be infringed in any way.
Here is a bit of Second Amendment hypocrisy: Lawmakers who, in the interest in of grandstanding in a political forum, pass laws MANDATING gun ownership in a prescribed area.
The second Amendment says I have a right to bear arms. It has no authority to force arms upon me (unless I am conscripted into military service). Now, if I am a citizen who chooses not to own a firearm (and, for the record, I do), it should be incumbent upon the government (big, small or Goldilocks-sized) to do everything in its power to make sure no one shoots my arse off, be it a criminal, a deranged teenager or a sociopath.
Unlike some in the media and other socially-progressive liberals (of which I am also one), I do not think we can ever completely erase the threat of mass shootings or other carnage. Freedom is a pretty messy thing. Saying that, I find no hypocrisy in the standpoint that guns should be tougher to buy and the standards of responsibility borne by gun owners should be far more stringent than currently exist. It takes more paperwork and responsibility to own and drive a car than to own and operate a gun. Given the inherent dangers of both items, this seems incongruous.
Scott I agree reasonable requirements to own a firearm are needed. However if you put 10 people in a room and ask them what is reasonable you will get 10 different answers. Your driving a car analogy is flawed because you like many still treat firearm ownership as a privilege when in fact firearm ownership is a right. Some may not like the fact that firearm ownership is in the Bill of Rights but it is and therefore can not be denied.
"However if you put 10 people in a room and ask them what is reasonable you will get 10 different answers."
And yet, as a society we still somehow manage to make decisions and set policies! It's strange how the folks with the strongest opinions on a subject are the quickest to invoke this particular argument.
"Your driving a car analogy is flawed because you like many still treat firearm ownership as a privilege when in fact firearm ownership is a right."
And we all know that rights, unlike privileges, cannot be regulated in any way, and bear with them no responsibilities, right?
"Scott I agree reasonable requirements to own a firearm are needed" - Guess we can add cherry picking quotes to your resume Scindapsus!
Hardly. You faulted Scott's car ownership analogy, which specifically referred to regulation and responsibility, because owning a gun is a right, not a privilege. Not only that, but you followed your so-called agreement with the lame-o 'of course, no one can agree on what reasonable means, so what are you gonna do?' bit!
So although you mouth the words "reasonable requirements," every word after that says just the opposite. Good post for this OP!
I think that risk-risk situation Scindapsus proposed makes a lot of sense. I for one would also prefer policies that put the onus more upon gun owners. In some places you can legally kill people for trespassing in broad daylight in your front yard as long as you can convince a judge that you were genuinely scared when you pulled the trigger.
The current policies definitely do lighten the risk load upon gun owners. If gun owners feel more comfortable shooting with no consequence, this means it more risky for everyone else who may find themselves in that low probability scenario of being in a gun owner's sights. To me, increasing risk for the general public while having benefits accrue to particular profiting groups is an immoral thing to do.
Actually, the car analogy is valid. The right to bear arms is not limited to firearms nor did the framers have modern rifles and handguns in mind when they drafted the document. The right to own such weapons exists as an extension of the original intent of the document.
Likewise, the framers knew nothing of automobiles. Yet the framework was already in place for the state and federal governments to apply the existing Common Law regarding movement and conveyance to the emerging technology.
Thus, the original analogy is in play. And before anyone starts typing that the second amendment is a constitutionally-defined right while driving (or any other accepted right according to Common Law) is not, take a close look at the ninth amendment.
And to the second point, Hunter: Laws are not about coming up with rules that are universally agreed-upon. They are about codifying policy in the best interest of the majority without undo burden on the minority. If that were easy, human beings would not have many thousands of years of turmoil to read about in the history books.
Scott is correct Hunter, Cars are much more dangerous than firearms because people take cars for granted, they drive drunk, talk on the phone, eat, put on makeup, shave, have sex and text while driving which is why far more people in the US are killed each year in car accidents than in firearm accidents. Cars need more regulation than firearms for sure.
Let's talk about the Second Amendment. It was included as a hedge against centralized government and unrestrained authority. But, it also envisioned an armed and trained militia (along the line of Switzerland's)for the defense of the United States proper not foreign adventures. What was not envisioned by the Founding Fathers was a standing army. Many of the framers of the Constitution were extremely wary of a standing army as a way to totalitarianism (or the installation of a king, whatever). So any militia argument is invalid until we dismantle our standing army.
You have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That right is not unconditional just as the right to free speech is not unconditional. If free speech were unconditional there would be no laws against making terroristic threats. So your right to own and carry a gun, whether rifle, pistol or shotgun, can be regulated. An attempt to regulate is not tantamount to an attack on anyone's rights under the 2nd amendment - regardless of how many posters you see on Facebook lampooning proposed regulations.
Mark David Ledbetter, a self-described strict Constitutional constructionist and libertarian, has done an excellent treatment of this in Volume 1 of his America's Forgotten History. He writes in an entertaining style and, while I don't agree with all of his conclusions, his history through the formation of our country and the first four presidents is highly informative.
F_E, you must really chafe at the restrictions placed on owning land mines, given how few Americans get killed by those each year!
Again, I'm curious by how much would you weaken this statement: "The only legal defense against a criminal homicide charge against a person who shoots and kills another is that the victim in fact intended to inflict lethal harm"?
Scindapsus I can see no legal defense for intentionally killing someone else except the fear for ones own life no matter the weapon used after all what you describe is murder.
In the case of "accidents" where the person never intended to kill but did so anyway (hunting accidents, driving too fast for conditions, improper firearms handling...) I would think a lesser charge such as involuntary manslaughter would apply.
In the case of unintended death (pure accidents like brakes malfunction on a car or safety malfunction on a rifle) I would think the punishment would be lessened to a great degree or non-existent.
But of course that's just my take on things I'm sure yours is quite different.
Pus, I'll bite on weakening your statement. "The only legal defense against a criminal homicide charge against a person who shoots and kills another is that the (shooter reasonably believed that the) victim in fact intended to inflict (physical) harm (and the shooter feared for his/her or another's immediate safety)"?
No one knows another's intent, only what is perceived. If I feared for my physical well-being at the hands of another - or the safety and physical well-being of a member of my family - I would not try and ascertain motive. Whether I was in for lethal harm or just a tail whipping is immaterial. I would use deadly force regardless of the consequences to myself.
F_E, you're reiterating the current situation, aren't you? Which puts the burden on the shootee, not the shooter (and yes, it does makes cynical sense that you would like it that way). As long as your view is that it's not as bad to kill someone with a lethal weapon if you didn't mean to, or that you don't need to be sure of someone's intentions before you can safely blow them away, or that you should be able to risk killing innocent others to protect your own sorry hide, you're going to have to deal with lots of people wanting to keep you and your guns far away from them.
Cars are not lethal weapons. They can kill, but that is not what they are designed for. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not demanding to be able to drive your car into a church so you can protect yourself with your car. Incidentally, I would not limit this argument to guns; if someone "accidentally" killed someone with a knife that they carried around, I'd apply the same standard to them.
The bottom line is this (and this is why I put this in a thread on hypocrisy in the first place): you value your own life so PROFOUNDLY that you think that you should be entitled to take the lives of others, whether or not they pose a real risk to you. Too harsh? Only if being "accidentally" shot to death leaves you less dead than being "intentionally" shot to death and if your perceptions of the motives of others are flawless, or if you weren't so keen on lesser penalties for crimes with the same outcome.
Scindapsus you must have scored really low on reading comprehension tests?
Dead is Dead no matter the intent I get it I really do but I am speaking to a legal standard not to a moral one. You asked me to weaken your statement and I did the best I could to convey my position but since you couldn't grasp it here is an example of legal vs moral standards:
A 15 year old girl is in love with a boy who just turned 16; since they are so in love they decide to sleep together. Afterwards her parents find out and call the police. The boy is charged with Statutory Rape. In no way was either the boy or the girl coerced into sex in fact they made a mutual decision about it but the legal standard for Statutory Rape has been met. Now change her age to 16 and his to 17 and no crime has been committed. Morally many may still find it wrong but it does not meet the legal standard for Statutory Rape.
So you see it's okay that your morality finds killing anyone in any way wrong (except in the case of known intent to kill you as you stated) but thankfully those of us with more common sense are in the majority on this one.
"Dead is dead" is neither a legal nor a moral issue, it's a biological fact. You made your position perfectly clear: the current legal situation suits you just fine. I also really do get that you want the right to protect your own apparently insanely valuable life, even if that means putting the apparently rather less valuable lives of others at risk. I suppose one could consider my objection to this to be a moral one, but I do feel that avoiding blatant hypocrisy isn't really a moral issue.
And there's that term "common sense" popping up again: your "common sense" saying that killing anyone in any way is not necessarily wrong ("except in the case of known intent to kill").
I suppose you think people should get longer prison sentences for a given violent act if it was a "hate crime"?
"Dead is dead is neither a legal or moral issue, it's a biological fact" - true but the way someone became dead (murder, self defense or accident) is a legal/moral issue. I for the most part agree with F_E & Bryant here intent of both parties must be considered.
So, scindapus, let me get your point correctly. As I read it, you will let someone kill you unless - and only if - you are able to satisfy yourself that they do, in fact, mean to kill you. And then, you might take action to defend yourself, or your family. Do I read your statements correctly?