Do You Own a Gun?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Radar

From the moment of your birth until the moment you reach the age of majority (Which is recognized as 18 in America) you are not really a person under the law. You are merely the chattel of your parents. You don't have any decision making authority or powers over your life. Your parents hold these powers for you until you reach the age of majority.

Your parents do not have the right to physically endanger you, but they do have the right to decide which of your rights they will allow you to exercise until you are the age of majority and are responsible for your own life and can make those decisions for yourself.

You have the right to own a gun at birth. Your parents decide whether or not you will be allowed to exercise that right.

That's not what you inferred. Now you're saying that we have these rights, but aren't allowed to exercise them due to age. What else might be legitimate reasons for disallowing the exercising of rights? And what about the rights to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness (drinking alcohol)

Originally Posted by Radar

Let's use someone else as an example other than a child to clear up the point...

No, because your point was "from birth" not "from incarceration".

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Ibram

So we have basic rights inherent to being a person but only if the government says you're old enough?

No. You have rights regardless of whether or not there is a government, and you can only exercise which rights your parents allow until you live on your own...regardless of whether or not we have a government.

[Ibby]

So... you have rights unless your parents say you don't then. Lovely.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I have a philosophical question which I've thought about often while reading arguments about how it's unconstitutional to have restrictions on gun ownership.

If that is true, then what about all the other laws that restrict people from doing what they want? Some road rules. Smoking laws. Curfews. monopoly laws for business. There are so many situations where this argument can apply. I don't see how it's valid.

Because we have the right to do whatever we want as long as our actions don't physically harm, endanger, or violate the property, person, or rights of non-consenting others.

Road rules are there for safety and to ensure that people do not endanger each other. Smoking laws are all wrong as are monopoly laws.

You have the right to shoot yourself up with Heroin. You do not have the right to drive a car on public roads while high on heroin, or fly a jet, work heavy machinery around other people, etc.

Merely owning guns does not harm or endanger others and those who claim otherwise are liars.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Ibram

So... you have rights unless your parents say you don't then. Lovely.

Wrong. You have them, you just can't exercise them unless your parents allow you to.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

So restricting guns (not that I endorse it) is an effort to preserve that freedom - cool!

Violating the rights of those who are harming nobody does not preserve freedom. In fact it virtually guarantees the worst kind of tyranny. Only Nazis and their ilk support limiting, restricting, or outlawing gun ownership for regular people and not for government.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Radar

You have the right to shoot yourself up with Heroin.

How can you have this right when the very substance itself is illegal? Are you saying I have the right to illegal drugs?

[Radar]

Yes I am. I'm saying that all laws against drugs, prostitution, gambling, polygamy, or any other consensual act ore violations of our natural rights. You have the right to put anything you want into your own body (once you reach the age of majority). No government has any legitimate authority to prevent you from doing so.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Radar

Wrong. You have them, you just can't exercise them unless your parents allow you to.

Wait, what? How can you have them if you can't exercise them?

[Trilby]

Ok. I'm down with all that, Radar. Now. Let's say I choose to shoot some heroin, a thing my govt. looks down on, and I become sick--I go to the local ER expecting health care for my breathing problem related to shooting too much H. I've no money to pay for the care and no insurance. Who is responsible for caring for me while I am ill and paying the bill?

Same thing goes if I choose to use sex workers who may be sick with STD's--who pays for my care?

[Ibby]

You are, or the charity of anyone willing to help an addict.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Ibram

You are, or the charity of anyone willing to help an addict.

If i can't pay and no one will help me---I die. I guess this would help with the population problem but it seems rather----uncivilized.

[Ibby]

Well so what do you propose? I mean, those are the two options... either you save yourself or someone else saves you. Otherwise, you die. I mean, thats a rather simple formula, no?

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Well so what do you propose? I mean, those are the two options... either you save yourself or someone else saves you. Otherwise, you die. I mean, thats a rather simple formula, no?

I guess I am getting at the whole idea that I have the right to use illegal drugs; or any harmful substance, without thought for the common good or the common dollar. Personal choices are rarely personal--they nearly always effect someone. A child, a govt. agency, a community service...just a thought, ya know.

Originally Posted by Radar

Wrong. You have them, you just can't exercise them unless your parents allow you to.

When I was away from my parents I exercised several rights without their permission, as was my right.