Balder

Civitas nubibus wrote:

Ok cool so how would you classifly gun rights/laws ??

I'm not sure what you mean by classifying gun rights and laws. The point of Odin's and Vinmark's discussion is whether the ownership of weapons should be classified as a right or as a freedom. Basically, should the ownership of weapons, specifically guns, be controlled or should they be allowed in full. The former would make weapon ownership a freedom and the latter would make it a right. However, if you want a definition I guess I would define it as how Wikipedia defines it, "the set of laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians.".

Personally, I agree with Odin on the execution but not the concept. Conceptually, as I stated earlier, I believe that people should be able to gain access to a weapon either for recreational purposes or for protection. However, for the execution, I think that a weapon should be relatively difficult to obtain and that no civilian should be able to obtain a military grade weapon. Vinmark's remarks on the reason for weapon ownership to be a right is quite specific but doesn't solve the problem. If the reason why you should own a gun is because your nation could collapse or the military has the ability to attempt a coup, then the problem isn't the lack of guns that the populace has but that the government was poorly designed or executed.

The reason why modernized and "civilized" nations don't have military coups is because of stability. You know what decreases stability, WEAPONS! Low gun control and high gun ownership have been shown to increase the homicide rate, crime rate, violence, anger, and anxiety in a nation. So what you're basically stating is that since your nation is unstable you're going to give the populace weapons which will create more instability which will make you give more guns and so on and so forth. It doesn't make sense. It is a vicious cycle that only leads to more death and misery.

Odin wrote:

Did you mean to write something?

He did write something but he put it in my quote accidentally.

Odin wrote:

I don’t think Great Britain has as much of an advantage as you think. Their military probably had 40k-50k men spread across the entire Empire. Defeating the Americans would require moving those troops across the sea, blocking the entire American coast to prevent supplies from entering from France, and somehow defeating millions of free colonists. It was an upset victory, but most of these guerrilla wars are.

As for the United States military, people underplay how capable it really is. It would not occur like Vietnam or Afghanistan because they’d be on homeland soil.

However, the US’s soldiers are also citizens. If the citizens wanted to revolt, the military would likely join them, much like the French Revolution or Russian Revolution. This would be much less bloody and is realistic.

As a former Communist, I understand the Russian revolts well. But overall it is a good point. I don't think it'd be like Vietnam or Afghanistan because those were quite specific in terms of conditions and period in which they occured. However, the US is quite large, and has many unique subcultures within it. From the South, to Appalachia and the Plains to name afew. So I think militias would handle things differently, more so if say.. a second Civil War happened.

Odin wrote:

You make me sound so smart, when I'm just struggling to keep up. :P

Aw, don't sell yourself short.

Kendell wrote:

Difficult to give the TLDR but here goes nothing. First, there are two different types of rights: natural rights and unnatural rights. In comparing natural rights, unnatural rights, and freedoms, you have to view them as a hierarchical system. It is easier to start from the bottom. So on the bottom you have freedoms. A freedom is the declaration of an unrestricted activity given by a government. Basically, you can do anything you want that is within the law. If you violate that law you can have that freedom taken away.

Next you have unnatural rights. They are basically freedoms, in that they are given and taken away by governments, but generally a government won't take away your unnatural right even if you violate it. Violating an unnatural right is also worse than violating a freedom. Lastly are natural rights. They are granted to you at birth and no government or person can take them away from you. What this means is that (1) within every natural right are unnatural rights and within every unnatural right are freedoms and (2) a freedom can be established as an unnatural right and an unnatural right can be established as a freedom or taken away.

Is this your own informal categorization, or are you intending to rely on the meanings as used in political philosophy? Because this account of "unnatural rights" does not actually seem to square with the literature on the subject. (That is, just because something is an "unnatural" right, does not mean it is not a required right; it may be an optional thing, or it may be morally requisite for reasons unrelated to the inherent characteristics—i.e., not based on the "nature"—of the right-holder in question.)

Civitas nubibus wrote:

Whats the tldr difference between right and freedom.
Gun safety classes and training classes as kids to help introduce them to guns.
More guns =more cool

If I may give my competing answer:
"Rights" are moral/legal claims that should be respected, or else a penalty be suffered by the party that disrespects them.
"Freedoms" are a specific type of rights, which protect the claimant from certain kinds of restrictions.

So the right to a speedy and fair trial is not a "freedom," because it has nothing to do with preventing restrictions on those who have it, but it is still a "right," because it demands a specific kind of action taken (by the government, in this case) toward whoever it applies to. Whereas "free speech" is a freedom, because it is specifically a right which forbids the government from restricting speech, except in certain limited circumstances (e.g. defamation or endangering public safety).

Odin wrote:

A former Communist? Why'd you join and why'd you leave the party?

Well I never joined a party, but I did hold Communist views in my earlier years.

HELP THE HUGSBURGS ARE INVADING ME And I mean they are the Hugsburg Reunited Nation. But still they had invaded Inner Experina Region quite a lot I need some millitary to help me