this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
75 points (91.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43889 readers
772 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That I would oppose. Once you start creating standards for the exercise of rights, it becomes very, very easy to set the standards high enough that it's functionally impossible to pass. We've already seen that kind of nonsense with literacy tests for voting in the south after reconstruction. I support making people sit through training, but I would oppose requiring passing a test.
I understand where you're coming from, because I know a lot of dumb people that are armed, and I've met more than a few people that I wouldn't personally trust with a gun. I had a college roommate that shot himself in his hand because he was fucking around with his handgun without, y'know unloading it. On the other hand, I've also lived in a city, and I lived in really shitty parts of that city (specifically, I lived in Chicago; I lived in Little Village half a block south of Douglas Park, Humboldt Park before gentrification started, and Austin). I've had experiences with the CPD that made me very, very aware that they were not going to be there to help me if anything happened. I had someone spend ten minutes trying to kick my front door in, and cops just... Didn't show up. My now ex-wife called and said there there was a "domestic" ongoing (e.g., she was saying I was trying to kill her), and cops didn't even show up for over 45 minutes. Where I currently live, cops are at least ten minutes away, and that's if they are willing to drive 80mph on mountain roads. Fundamentally, cops can't protect you, and if you aren't white and don't "respect their authority", they probably won't try.
...But I think that most of those things can be addressed culturally and economically rather than through additional legislation restricting rights. Violence is, more often than not, an issue related to--but not directly caused by--poverty and opportunity.
You're probably the most reasonable pro gun person I've talked to in a while.
Do you think the right to own a gun is more real than the right to drive a car? Because we require a driver's test (and insurance and other stuff) for a car, and if you took cars away a lot of people would be fucked. Way more than if you took guns away. (Which is also a bunch of separate issues. We should be less car centered)
I don't really accept that the right to have a gun is a fundamental right. I know it's in the Constitution. That provides legal backing for it but not like moral or ethical backing, to me.
You're right that poverty other issues cause a lot of problems. And our policing system is utter garbage. That's why if you were a serious candidate, I'd consider voting for you even with the disagreements on this.
Yes. One is part of our constitution, and is recognized as fundamental to having freedom at all. The other is convenient and necessary for modern life in the US, but the need could be eliminated through appropriate public policy.
I argue that the moral and ethical right comes from the right to defend your own life (and the lives of others) and freedom, with violence if necessary. If you accept that you have that right, then accepting that people have the right to use the most effective tool for that is a reasonable conclusion. Some countries do not recognize that the individual has the right to defend themselves; those countries tend to also prevent citizens from owning pepper spray and tasers, since those can both be lethal.
You could make an argument that travel is a fundamental right, and if you accept that the most effective tool comes with the right then access to a car becomes a right.
I don't know if I accept that having a right also means you have the right to the most effective tools to execute it. You have the right to speech but airwaves are restricted. Many places have laws limiting noise made in the early morning.
Some of that probably comes from recognizing that you may have the right to talk about how great Widgets are, I have the right to sleep at night.
You might have the right to defend yourself, but I want the right to not live in mortal fear because that guy carries a fully automatic gun on the bus I need to take.