No, what you're missing is the point that there are other ways to regulate conduct other than civil lawsuits. — Hanover
If the Peoria PD decides it no longer wants to protect its citizens, — Hanover
And I was pointing out that individuals believe that they have the right to possess firearms for their personal protection and that it is a universal right.
...
The right to self-defense is useless if one does not have the right to the means necessary to effectively defend him/herself from a threat. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
the police chief is called before the City Council and asked about it with hundreds of angry Peorians screaming about in the room. If the City Council decides to support the police chief despite his decision to not do his job, the next election won't go so well for the councilmen and the mayor. That's how it's done all the time, not through the filing of civil suits demanding damages. In fact, if there were a rebel police chief and city council, would they really care if the City of Peoria were required to pay its tax dollars to a damaged citizen? Would that really alter their behavior? It seems like in this example they don't really care about much.
And all this explains why the police do their job, which is the same reason that everyone does his job, which is that they don't want to get fired because ultimately everyone is accountable to someone. — Hanover
I never said, "Civil lawsuits are a way to regulate conduct", let alone the best way, only way, etc.
Your point is completely irrelevant. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Nobody has said anything about police protecting "citizens".
What has been pointed out is that courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have ruled that the government has no legal obligation to protect individuals. The only exception, the courts have ruled, is when there is a special relationship between an individual and the government, such as when an individual is in witness protection. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
This is just one source showing that in the U.S. the police have no obligation to protect you. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
I am not aware of any conditions under which a claim to the possession of a firearm for one's personal protection would not be justified. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
I'm still not convinced by your case. — Bitter Crank
A right is a justified claim.
I am not aware of any conditions under which a claim to the possession of a firearm for one's personal protection would not be justified. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
No, you've missed the point. The case cited that has caused you such consternation — Hanover
I just demonstrated to you why the right to a weapon for self-defence would be irrational. — Metaphysician Undercover
Anyone can claim that anything they want is "justified", but to actually justify it, you must demonstrate why it is right. — Metaphysician Undercover
Your claim though, is that the right to a weapon for self-defence is "universal", and that's why it's irrational. — Metaphysician Undercover
imagine the number of lawsuits there might be if the state takes away the right to possess a firearm — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Bear in mind a point that was raised earlier: The State has sovereign immunity. It can be sued only if it is willing to be sued. — Bitter Crank
If the Second Amendment is repealed, it won't be by the Federal Government. "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and by 3/4th of the states (38) or a constitutional convention called by 3/4th of the states. — Bitter Crank
I do recall saying that possession of a firearm for one's personal protection is a human right. In other words, it depends not on being a citizen of a particular state, having a particular status (non-grandparents do not have grandparents' rights), etc. In other words, it is a right that one has simply by being born human. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
A right is a justified claim, not a burden of proof. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, a good start would be to respond to what people have actually said.
I did not say "weapon". I specifically said firearm.
I did not say "self-defense". I said one's personal protection.
I did not even say "own". I specifically said possess. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
I do recall saying that possession of a firearm for one's personal protection is a human right. In other words, it depends not on being a citizen of a particular state, having a particular status (non-grandparents do not have grandparents' rights), etc. In other words, it is a right that one has simply by being born human. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
But if "you do not need to possess a gun, that's what the police are for" is going to be the spirit of reform, that is setting up the government for a lot of liability. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
If the government could not be sued then there never would have been DeShaney v. Winnebago in the first place, let alone a ruling on it by the U.S. Supreme Court. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
But if you file a suit because the FBI said you were a Moscow agent, and this ruined your business, you'll probably be told to take a walk. — Bitter Crank
Should convicted violent criminals be able to acquire firearms for their personal protection? — Chany
How about the mentally ill? — Chany
How about minors? — Chany
Should I be able to acquire other weapons of war with no more restrictions than aquiring a handgun or rifle? In other words, if I find it necessary and can show that owning grenades could possibly save someone's life in defending themselves? Let's say that, if we never regulated hand grenades and allowed to public to buy them just like any sporting shotgun, one person per year since 1950 would be able to defend their life and their property that would not have been able to otherwise. However, as a result, the number of people who were killed by hand grenades since 1950 caused, on average, an additional 500 deaths per year. Is this grounds for heavily regulating hand grenades, even? — Chany
The actual argument is that the evidence indicates that the current proliferation and use of firearms is not positive or nuetral. When, statistically speaking, more people get shot, commit suicide, and face other social ills like domestic disputes than guns are used to defend themselves, there is a problem. When owning a firearm makes you supposedly three times more likely to be killed by a firearm, it becomes hard to see why owning a firearm is a justifiable means of self defense that the state is obligated to protect. Even if we doubt the statistics the pro-gun control crowd use, I find it disingenuous to pretend that their argument amounts to "we don't need guns because we have cops." — Chany
They forfeit their rights when they commit a felony. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Nation states are not trusted with guns. It is just a fact that they have them, and there is nothing we can do about it. A country could unilaterally disarm, but that would merely place it at the mercy of other countries that won't. So Nation states having armed militaries is simply an inevitable fact of life that nothing can be done about, and hence irrelevant to the discussion.Nation-states that have committed crimes such as the Holocaust, the removal of Native Americans, etc. can be trusted with guns, but a private citizen who has committed no crime and just wants a handgun in his nightstand next to his bed for his personal protection cannot?!
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.