U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

[PowerWizard]

Ah, of course, "for the greater good." When does the greater good trump individual freedom? Or is individual freedom the greater good?

I believe the latter.

Yes, the greater good. Either in a Kantian sense (the progress of humankind) or in the Hegelian sense (the progress of history) it is greater than the good of a single person. But this is "flawed" 19th century logic, so let's throw it on the junkyard. Wait, utilitarianism, the one you believe in is from the 19th century too. It's just as incoherent and flawed as any other mainstream ideology out there. So what shall we do now?

I support the ownership of guns because they enable me to defend myself and ensures the protection of my liberty.

I live in a country where gun control is one of the strictest on the globe. I am able to defend myself and ensure the protection of my liberty without waving a gun around. Or are you suggesting that I am not a free person without weapons?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes, the greater good. Either in a Kantian sense (the progress of humankind) or in the Hegelian sense (the progress of history) it is greater than the good of a single person.

Yes, it is. However, it fits nicely that the real greater good is also the advancement and liberty of the individual.

The Second Amendment is the greater good. That is precisely what it is designed for. The greater good - the liberty of the people - the ability to resist the totalitarian state.

But this is "flawed" 19th century logic, so let's throw it on the junkyard. Wait, utilitarianism, the one you believe in is from the 19th century too. It's just as incoherent and flawed as any other mainstream ideology out there.

I don't know where you want to go from there, as you just put words in my mouth.

I am able to defend myself and ensure the protection of my liberty without waving a gun around.

Defend yourself against what?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I live in a country where gun control is one of the strictest on the globe. I am able to defend myself and ensure the protection of my liberty without waving a gun around. Or are you suggesting that I am not a free person without weapons?

You can not defend yourself against attack as well as if you had a gun. So, you are compromising one of your freedoms.

That is a minimum of what I talk about- I mean, each state should be allowed to have complete control over what gun laws they do and don't want enacted. Period.

Which state would be better of with guns banned? Or are you in favor of states over federal gov't in general? I don't see that we would be better off if states could decide for themselves. If guns are banned in one state they can be brought in from the next state over, just like we in Ohio get our fireworks from Indiana.

[seireikhaan]

Which state would be better of with guns banned? Or are you in favor of states over federal gov't in general? I don't see that we would be better off if states could decide for themselves. If guns are banned in one state they can be brought in from the next state over, just like we in Ohio get our fireworks from Indiana.

I am in favor of states instead of the Feds generally, yes. I feel that they are a little more in tune with the interests of the people who elected them. Maybe not much, but a little bit anyways.

And yes, there could be complications from people hopping states. However, if the people are that much in favor of being allowed whatever guns they want, then they should elect someone who favors less gun restrictions. I know, there's always going to be minority opinions, and its not a perfect system. I feel its the most intuitive, however.

Why must it be rewritten? The Fed provides basic ownership while the states wrestle with the nuances.

Legal precedent. By abolishing/rewriting it, the 10th commandment can be allowed to take precedent over the issue.

[Strike For The South]

Legal precedent. By abolishing/rewriting it, the 10th commandment can be allowed to take precedent over the issue.

If we abolish it then you open the door for no ownership which is explicitly stated. We are trying to decide how much.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am in favor of states instead of the Feds generally, yes. I feel that they are a little more in tune with the interests of the people who elected them. Maybe not much, but a little bit anyways.

And yes, there could be complications from people hopping states. However, if the people are that much in favor of being allowed whatever guns they want, then they should elect someone who favors less gun restrictions. I know, there's always going to be minority opinions, and its not a perfect system. I feel its the most intuitive, however.


Legal precedent. By abolishing/rewriting it, the 10th commandment can be allowed to take precedent over the issue.

Funny thing about the tenth amendment, no one seems to follow it. sad yes, but it is true. otherwise we would not have the fed gov involved with social issues, education etc...

[Strike For The South]

Funny thing about the tenth amendment, no one seems to follow it. sad yes, but it is true. otherwise we would not have the fed gov involved with social issues, education etc...

State and Fed power are meant to check one another. Not be exclusive.

[a completely inoffensive name]

State and Fed power are meant to check one another. Not be exclusive.

The Fed and gov are not supposed to check each other per se. The Constitution and the Tenth Amendment outline exactly what the Federal government and State governments have control over. In terms of who has influence over the Federal government, it was supposed to be in Congress a mix between the people (House) and the State Governments (Senate). So originally the States had a back up check against the Federal government in case it decided to just go against the Constitution, but now you see that the State governments have no say in the Federal government and the Fed is bigger then ever. It is hard for a state to assume the Fed responsibilities of providing an army to protect the nation and such but it is easy for the Fed to take over state responsibilities.