How do we get SS without actually asking for it.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    Because its not a first class right? Because not every arm is a self defense arm.

    Agreed it is not treated by the system as a first class right (for what appears to be practical reasons, but even so, it certainly could use some strengthening in that context). But that doesn't matter in the context of convincing the public of the rightness of our cause. I don't suppose it's occurred to you that by winning on the self-defense argument, we could strengthen the right as it's applied in the courts?

    Not every arm needs to be a self defense arm. But firearms are self-defense arms, as evidenced by the primary use to which they're put by the general public (the use of arms for defensive purpose massively exceeds the use for nefarious purposes). Even if such evidence didn't exist, that firearms are easy to use for self-defense, in such a way as to pose essentially no risk to innocent bystanders (the numbers for that bear this out as well), is sufficient cause to treat them as self-defense arms.


    Push on self defense to hard and you will see why.. . Ours is not a Lockean government..

    No, but recognition of the right to self-defense is more basic and fundamental than nearly anything else. This is put into sharp relief by the following question that you might ask of anyone in the general public:

    Do you believe you have the right to your own life?


    In any case. I know what I am going to argue...

    I hope it works, and I hope that if, as I expect, you encounter the obstacles I've outlined, you'll be able to avoid them. I've done all I can here. It's up to you to account for the issues I've raised.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    I hope it works, and I hope that if, as I expect, you encounter the obstacles I've outlined, you'll be able to avoid them. I've done all I can here. It's up to you to account for the issues I've raised.


    of course. Btw i hope you approach works as well.

    Do you believe you have the right to your own life?

    Lots of folks hesitate-- many give the wrong answer.. its amazing -- try asking "what would you do to save your kids ?" For some reason a selfless motive helps them get a clue ..

    The biggest issue with self defense is that is rests on the primacy of the individual-- plato and his ilk had other ideas ..


    I may have missed it, but did you every come up with a reply to " How many dead children is acceptably dangerous?" I get hit with that every time I tried the risk analysis approach.. i got stumped ? You ?
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    I may have missed it, but did you every come up with a reply to " How many dead children is acceptably dangerous?" I get hit with that every time I tried the risk analysis approach.. i got stumped ? You ?

    My answer to that is "only enough to ensure that the number of children who live is maximized. Dead people can't have children, dead parents can't protect their children, and people who can't effectively defend themselves die."
     
    Last edited:

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    The biggest issue with self defense is that is rests on the primacy of the individual-- plato and his ilk had other ideas ..

    The necessity of self-defense is a practical one, not merely philosophical. The plain fact of the matter is that nobody can come to your defense faster than you can, and most defensive situations don't allow sufficient time for others to intervene.

    There are other arguments, too. Whose life is more valuable, that of the criminal or that of the law-abiding citizen? If one must choose, what choice should be made? If the criminal's life is more valuable, what makes it more valuable? One can easily argue that the law-abiding citizen's life is more valuable to the rest of society than a criminal's if only because the law-abiding citizen contributes more to the society than the criminal does, and therefore even in the collective view, self-defense is a necessity to maximize the benefit to the collective. And that's on top of the obvious ethical arguments that could be made.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,934
    Messages
    7,259,584
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom