Lawyers, doctors, or guns

[bmark]

Todd,

I agree, you're taking my posting way too seriously. I was just trying to make light of people who think that their opinion is the only one that matters. I may not agree with your opinion, but I certainly believe you're entitled to it. Since we are on opinions, in my opinion, gun control will not prevent criminals from having guns. If merely passing a law would cure all our problems then we wouldn't have drug dealers, prostitutes, thieves, or speeders (just to name a few).

However, all this is just my opinion, please don't take it too seriously.

 

[bgott]

There is a difference between a car and a gun. Automobile ownership is not a right, it's a privilege. Gun ownership is a right, not a privilege. The constitution says nothing about "The right to be licensed to bear arms".

 

[glennmac]

Is drinking whiskey a right or privilege?

 

[looch]

Two statisticians go duck hunting.
One takes a shot at a duck and misses - 1 foot to the right. He takes another shot at the same duck - 1 foot to the left.
The other one starts jumping up and down yelling: "You got him! You got him!"

Statistically, a man with his head in an oven and his feet on a block of ice is quite comfortable.

I know, I know - dumb jokes you've probably all heard before. It's just that they demonstrate how I look at statistics.

 

[cowboydoc]

Bgott,
You are absolutely right and that is why I have no tolerance whatsoever for anyone that imposes more restrictions on that right. Once you take away one right the rest of it will fall right alongside. I can live with registration and background checks that's fine but it's getting ridiculous anymore. When I was a kid we'd walk down the road with guns after hunting. Shoot I'd take off in the morning and not be back until dark sometimes all the while toting my gun. Try and do that today. There is no doubt in my mind that our forefathers would be sick with what is going on in this country today with the two fundamental reasons the revolution was fought; taxes and gun ownership. My opinion is if you don't like the laws and constitution of this country there are plenty of countries that a fella can move to that you don't have the right to bear arms. If it's so bad and people are so afraid of others having guns then leave, it's that simple.

 

[DrDan]

At least we have some people in power now that seem to be smart enough to realize it's the moral fiber of the people that cause the killing. Has nothing to do with guns... Gun is just an object - It doesn't kill - needs a finger to pull the trigger. Yup there's accidents, but then again there are lots of accidents with all types of objects. I guess the politicians realize the NRA Lobby is real. As mentioned before if more laws had any effect there wouldn't be a drug problem, etc. We need leaders all the way from the president on down to teachers and parents who can be looked up to. People who believe in and practice the ten commandments. I've had guns from the time I was 9 years old and never even thought of killing anyone. When I grew up my parents taught me that to kill was wrong and the judicial system destroyed those who did such acts. Now the judicial system is so permissive that the perpetrators "know" they most likely can get away with dusting someone. Why not if therre is no punishment? Hell teachers can't even smack some [censored] kid who is insolent and disruptive. Parents can't even disipline them. How in gods name will this generation ever have any deterrants to just doing as they please? Maybe we need to reinstitute the hickory stick on the school marms desk. I can't understand how anyone in their right mind would teach with the rules that are in force these days. IMHO we have so many murders because we allow it! We do not enforce the laws already on the books so why make more. Oh ya I know - to make the lawmaker look like a problem solver so he/she can get back to lying, cheating and chasing the office help.

Gheeeeesh

Dr Dan

 

[toddler]

bgott,

You must have a more simplified definition of right vs privilege than I do. Are we talking positive rights, or negative rights here. If I farm all summer and have twice the amount of food I need that winter, and you party all summer and are starving that winter, do you have a right to half of my food? After all, you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Does that mean half my food? Or does your right to life simply mean I can't actively kill you? The first would be a positive right, the second, a negative right. There are no good moral arguments for either positive or negative rights. Only practical ones. A society needs to define the rights it's members are privileged to have, in order to exist.

Gun ownership is a privilege. Writing the word "right" down in the law books in one place, and "privilege" in another, doesn't make the reality of the situation different. The world is changing, and if the majority of people in this country voted that you couldn't own a gun, then it would no longer be a right, or a privilege, it would simply be a crime.

Since that is unlikely, and since this is a discussion on opinion, not philosophy, let's not bandy words such as "right" verses "privilege" around as if 5 letters is better than 9.

The "right to bear arms" is a privilege, granted to you by the constitution. There are some strings attached. You think too many, I think maybe too few. Since I'd go to war to protect your "right" to have and express your opinion on the matter, I look forward to your response. That "right" I believe is paramount to our country's survival. The right/privilege of carrying a gun, well, I'm a bit softer on that one.

Todd

 

[cowboydoc]

Todd,
I know you are a smart man so this is in all due respect but your answer is not alot more meaningful. To drive a car is a privelege to have a gun in my house is my constitutional right by darn. My pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness has nothing to do with your food supply, although our wonderful government has pretty much seen to it that the lazy bums in our society will have food, clothing, housing, etc. for free at our expense, BUT that is not a right it is privelege for being a citizen. At any time those benefits can be taken away or programs cancelled and there isn't a dang thing that person can do about it. They have no rights to welfare, but they do have a right to carry a gun. There is a huge difference between the two. If Bird was still a policeman he couldn't pull me over for no reason nor could he search my car or my house without reasonable cause. That is isn't a privelege that is MY RIGHT to illegal search and seizure. There has to be a reason for him to search my car or my house. There's no privelege there whatsoever. There is not a provision in the constitution that I MUST be granted a driver's license or that I must give you food, but THERE is one that I do have the right to have a gun. It is my RIGHT to have and bear arms. This RIGHT is eroded every single day by more laws that only inhibit the lawful gun owner. More rules and regulations do not do one darn thing to keep guns out of the hands of the criminals, not one thing. A criminal does not even bother to go through an ounce of paperwork to get a gun so why do you want to create more hassle, less RIGHTS not privileges, for the lawful, tax paying citizen? I'm sure Glenn or some of the other lawyers here can fill us in on the correct interpretation of a right vs. a privelege

 

[TWINKLE_TOES]

Cowboydoc,

Doc, you just stirred my memory. When I was in Junior High, my buddies and I went hunting one morning before school. Run the car in ditch and didn't have time to get home before school. We walked right into the school with our rifles, handed them over to the principal. He kept them in his office until school let out. This was no big deal and no one even gave it a second glance. In todays world you would end up doing hard time. /w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif

Al

 

[glennmac]

Well, Patrick, see what you have wrought: Two doctors arguing about guns asking a lawyer who's right about rights.

I'm not getting involved in this except to ask questions.

Do children, mental incompetents, convicted felons, epileptics, somnambulists, resident aliens, or illegal immigrants have a right or privilege to bear arms? If not, why not?

No one nipped at my whiskey question. If I dont have a constitutional right to drink whiskey, why did it take a constitutional amendment to stop me from drinking whiskey? So where in the constitution does it say I have that right? Or do I have it wrong.