The Second Amendment, Reinvigorated

Author: coal

Posts

Total: 34
#31
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@coal
You're talking about actually causing someone to be in fear that you might cause them some kind of physical pain.
I am suddenly reminded of the "I feared for my life" excuse we have heard over and over again from police officers who killed unarmed suspects.

Managing ones fear is a personal responsibility, it is not (or at least should not be) the business of the state to sheild individuals from unreasonable fear. And even if it were, that only works against your argument because I fear for my safety every time I find myself within proximity of someone carrying a tool that can end my life at any moment of their choosing. Do I not have the right to be free from that? Or does fear only work one way?

simply by carrying a firearm, you are not placing someone else at "elevated risk,"
This is patently false.

I am reminded of a concept in physics called potential energy. Think of laying a bowling ball on your foot. The PE is almost nonexistent. Pick that bowling ball up to your waste, there's now enough PE to possibly break a bone or two.

The same concept applies to one carrying a gun. Put ten unarmed people in a room. The amount of "energy" in the room leave almost no possibility for anyone to end up dead, and for it to happens would take a huge effort.

Now arm one of them. Suddenly the potential exists for multiple people to end up dead with almost no effort.

So no, the risk is objectively elevated. If no one we're armed it would take an intentional and severe effort to kill or seriously injure someone, in scenario two it could literally happen by accident.

So let me give you this set of practical scenarios to think over.
Sunsetting I notice about right wing arguments on gun safety, they always include drug dealers, rapists, or gang bangers. I find this quite interesting especially since most live in rural America where most of them have never even seen one of these. It speaks to the simplemindedness of these arguments, everything is black and white. Everything is "gods guys" vs "bad guys", and we need to guns to protect us from the bad guys.

The world is not this simple, and your examples are are as well overly simplistic and exclusive. What about the possibility that the woman instead of hitting the side of a condo fires a bullet into someone's living room killing a child? What about instead of scaring away the attackers causes them to be even more aggressive and kill her in "self defense"?

There are no good scenarios here, but the proliferation of guns only increases the risk that someone is killed.
#32
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
And even if it were, that only works against your argument because I fear for my safety every time I find myself within proximity of someone carrying a tool that can end my life at any moment of their choosing. Do I not have the right to be free from that? Or does fear only work one way?
exactly
#33
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
No, it defies a god-given right

Stop pretending that the constitution has the magical power of some infallible religious text.  There's no such thing as a "god given" right. God doesn't exist.

And even if she did exist, whatever rights she bestowed upon people are positively useless and mean nothing unless and until they are recognized by government, or whatever other entity has physical power and dominance over a given area.  The nonsense about an invisible spirit in the sky who picks and chooses which humans are worthy of rights-protections based on the latitude and longitude they exited their mother's vagina  is indeed one of the more idiotic and pathetic ideations of religious hypocrites. 

Rights come from government. That's it. They come from people's valuation of the law and the ability to enforce those values.

There should definitely  be some modifications to the second amendment. The same way society has restricted the "god given" right for convicted murderers to own guns and prevented citizens from the legal acquisition of nuclear bombs and chemical weapons, we can impose other types of regulations and god will just have to deal with that.

There's also the fact that the constitution does not give manufacturers the right to sell without regulation, but I digress. 
#34
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
So what will New York City look like now that we can carry guns around? Probably the same as it has for awhile. 

The city can still prohibit you from carrying guns in government buildings; in any location providing health, behavioral health or chemical dependence care or services; in any place of worship or religious observation; in schools and libraries; in public playgrounds, parks and zoos; the location of any state funded or licensed programs; in any vehicle used for public transportation; across all public transit including airports and bus terminals; in bars and restaurants; in entertainment venues; gaming and sporting events ; polling places; any public sidewalk or public area restricted for a special event; and protests or rallies. LOL.

New Yorkers use public transportation to get just about everywhere, so unless we plan on walking across all 5 boroughs we won't be allowed to carry our guns around. Also the presumption is that every private business restricts guns unless they display a sign saying otherwise. I highly doubt many NY businesses would invite all patrons to open carry inside. 

It's going to be fascinating to see what happens if/when the lawsuit arises that will make someone challenge New York's new gun rules. It's gonna be like some minority gang banger that shoots a cop, and Republicans are gonna shit themselves trying to figure out whose side to be on.