I hope this isn’t out of context, also I don’t want to “own the libs” or something here, I’m actually interested.

  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    They don’t consider it a right.

    Seriously, that’s what it comes down to. You either believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a human right, or you don’t. A right can not, and should not, be restricted.

    But who decides what is and isn’t a right? Well, in the case of the U.S., it was written into the primary source of law for the country not long after that source was put into action.

    Anything since then is a series of arguments about what that document “means”. So far, the argument that the right to keep and bear arms being a human right rather than a right only of the state has been upheld. That’s called the individual mandate iirc, though there may be other terminology in play.

    Now, I’m not getting into a debate here, I despise rehashing the same bullshit over and over again. There’s a shit ton of good arguments and bad arguments made by people on the two main sides of the issue (and there are actually more than two sides, but the loudest voices end up drowning out others), so you can find those if you really want.

    Being real, most of the hot button issues come down to a group of people believing that something is a right, and others believing it isn’t. Abortion? It’s about the right to body autonomy vs the belief that body autonomy is not a human right that is inviolable. There is a section of those that don’t believe it is a right that believe so because they also believe that the little thing inside has rights that trump the rights of the parent; but there are those that aren’t part of that section that still don’t believe it’s a right and thus can be regulated accordingly.

    I obviously do consider firearms to be essential to a human right, that being the right to defense, what with the whole comment starting with they. That being said, as soon as firearms cease to exist entirely, and/or everyone, including every police force and armed services are disarmed before citizens, I’d be willing to concede that firearms are no longer essential to that right. But the right to arms is a human right, regardless of what form of arms exist. If we went back to archery and swords, those would be the weapons essential to that core right. Which, to me, is the important part, that core right rather than the form that right takes.

    Fwiw, idgaf about lib vs con bullshit. I’m so far left that the typical US liberal thinks I’m dangerous. I’m not far left, but I’m a damn sight further left than the usual people involved in this issue.

    • bi_tux@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’m so far left that the typical US liberal thinks I’m dangerous.

      *insert leftwing group* and 2A go like me and beer

    • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I agree. It’s also by extension a right to personal protection independent of, not neccesarily against, the government.

      I use to be a volunteer firefighter so us and the local police have worked together on various scenes and though we aren’t super tight I feel I can trust them to do their duties as cops safely and effectively.

      That said I know what the realistic response times are. I also know that there have been break ins in the neighborhood, including attempts to get into my home. So among other basic security measures I have guns to protect my family and I during the time between a 911 call being made and the cops arriving. I also carry when I can. It’s not about being macho.