You stated in a previous post that local communities should be able to "make their own choices" as to whether guns are legal or not.
What if I have lived in that community all my life and all of a sudden a voting majority decides to ban guns? Are you saying I should either turn my guns in or move? Or are you saying that the law should only apply to those who voluntarily obey it?
A law is, by definition, an infringement of personal liberty for the public good. As you stated earlier, my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins and I'm OK with that. I just want to make sure we don't start passing laws that ban making a fist in the first place, or ban writing about making a fist, or drawing pictures of a fist. The "public good" can very quickly degenerate into a "nanny state" that is every bit as harmful as a place where the fists swing freely.
The bottom line is that the devil is in the details. What constitutes a "community" and what power should that "community" have to pass laws that may infringe upon the fundamental rights of others?
Sober,
Yes I did say that but so it is clear going forward, my position is built on the decision process using moral ideals long tested by mankind. Don't kill, don't lie, don't steal as the basis of natural law built off that construct. I will make note that local govt's as wrong as they can be at times don't kill at the same level and rate as the national gov't so once again we are back to your local whims comment. I'll also add that gov't as we know it would be impossible if they didn't as a matter of function violate those 3 moral ideals on a regular basis. Thus IMO makes the argument of gov't holding a moral basis and to protect and perpetuate moral society as mute and downright false. I'll leave that there.
You've got your opinion on this and I have mine. You see the right to carry in concealment as a primacy right and I see rights in a far broader perspective and more numerous. I even on a certain level see property rights trumping your right to carry a concealed weapon upon said property in some circumstances as we've previously discussed. We just disagree on that point and how it all applies. I don't oppose concealed carry personally but I also don't see your right being able to trump someone else who holds an opposite view.
I'm not anti gun, fact is I think anyone should be able to own any firearm they choose. I even think a convicted felon should be able to own a gun once their so-called debt to society is completely paid. If the debt is not paid, then why are they out of prison? Then again I'm opposed to prisons but that's a whole other thread anyway.
I like open carry because it requires nothing of other taxpayers for you to enjoy the right, the conceal permit process uses the tax dollars of others to operate, and the transparency of open carry allows those who don't want to be around guns to avoid those who have them. Business owners would also be free to welcome or deny service to gun owners and no requirements are placed on anyone else except the 2 parties involved. And yes I support the right of business owners to choose who they do business with just as I support your right to talk with, be friends with or even marry who you want. The right of free association is again a primacy ideal to me. Now go ahead and twist that however you want. And before you go there, yes segregation laws also violate the right of free association. Now go ahead.
You and I don't see society the same nor do we see a place for gov't equally. I personally believe organize states are obsolete and I think a global conversation is in it's infancy towards those ends. Where it goes may take decades, maybe a century or two just as the idea to challenge divine rights of kings took several centuries, so to may the divine rights of organized states also take. You obviously see things a bit different and I have no illusion you or I will convince the other any different.
As I said, we'll just agree to disagree on this one.
. Your total ignorance of an area I'm guessing you've never lived must less visited is showing. It also shows you are running out of logical and well thought out arguments so you are resorting to building a strawman to which you can then beat down.
