- Joined
- Mar 16, 2009
- Messages
- 47,445
- Reaction score
- 53,125
- Location
- Dixie
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
A lot of gun control / gun rights debates revolve around constitutional issues. This is fine, because that's ultimately what really matters in the US, but it prevents us from discussing more important issues. I would like to hear people's opinions on what your rights "ought to be" and why, putting the existing constitution aside. Another way of thinking of this would be: if there were no constitution and you were part of the committee tasked with writing one, what would you propose as the government's position on firearms and other weaponry and what is the rationale for that position?
Self-defense is a fundamental and natural right; evidence exists in that all living creatures defend themselves against attack as best they can.
If we value life, then we should consider self-defense to be a fundamental right.
Essential to that right is the right to be AT LEAST equally armed to any likely threat, as long as those arms do not endanger the existence of society or constitute an existential threat to the neighbors just by sitting there. (examples would be WMD, radiological stuff, certain types of high explosive that can spontaneously detonate if stored/maintained improperly).
Basically all personal weapons in common use should be protected for possession, carry and lawful use.