All Things Second Amendment

[Idolater]

I'm not sure you're following what I said. Let me try to clarify.

There are laws that only applied to Israel. Those laws should not be applied to any other nation's laws.

The rest of the laws that God gave in the Mosaic Law are moral laws. They apply everywhere, in every circumstance at all times, and are not restricted by a nation's border.

Of the latter group, there are two sub-groups, laws that define some sins as crimes, and laws that define other sins as only sins, with no earthly punishment for breaking those laws.

The only laws that would be used would be the laws that define some sins as crimes.

Namely, do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness.

In other words, it's not that someone authorizes it or prohibits it, it's that the law either applies or it does not.

So ... some sort of "expert," is what I'm gathering from that sort of response. It's unclear but seems like perhaps people with doctorates in at least two disciplines, theology and law. You did not specify, this is just me taking the pulse of your response to that question.

There is good indication that that law was meant for Israel only.

That backs up what I'm saying, you're thinking that someone accomplished in theology is going to be authenticating which of the numerous possible candidates are truly God's law, or God's laws. Your response indicates that you're thinking they would be able to articulate which particular candidate laws are authentic through some theological argument, which depends upon quality biblical interpretation, because when God's law is authenticated essentially the default or null hypothesis is that literature should be taken at face value unless it is demonstrated why it should not be taken at face value, which should be easy for an authentic authority in the discipline of theology to do. It should look easy for them.

They are defined by the Bible

Which Bible? And who gets to say which is the right interpretation of that Bible, that you mean? Would you say that the Bible is officially the 1900 version of the KJV? Why not the 1611 version? Why English, why would God only communicate in "King James" English, circa 1900? Did He previously communicate in 1611 "King James" English, but now He communicates in 1900 "King James" English? Or is the authoritative version of the Bible in "the original Greek?" And if so, then who authenticates any English translation /rendering of the Bible, or who has the power to formally annul an English version as representative of the Bible at all? iow who in your theonomy has the power to send police to arrest publishers of an English version of the Bible, that is outlawed to print, on an otherwise free press?

This is why I know you also mean that whoever is authenticating what God's law actually is, in your theonomy, must also be an authentic doctor of law, along with a doctor of the philosophy of theology.

, and ultimately, God.

Just for clarity, I also as a Catholic consider God to be the ultimate source of truth, in all matters of faith and morals, but not in political theory. That's where you and I differ, directly opposite. God does not prefer one political theory to another. He does prefer one theology and one morality, and He tells us precisely His will in these matters, but He leaves politics up to us. The implication is that He believes it's possible to have good government in any model of government imaginable, as difficult as it might be to believe.

This is just classical liberalism.

However, the government I advocate is a constitutional monarchy. The constitution defines the laws for the people, and the no one is authorized, not even the King, to change the criminal code (the four laws above and the laws that are built on them).

They're set in stone, if you will.

I have a draft written up by Kgov.com if you would like to go through it.

By whom? Who sets them in stone? I've set out that from what I gather it must be a doctorate in the philosophy of theology, plus a doctor of law also. iow, what I'm getting at here, is that there's no discipline for authentic authorities specializing in discerning God's law or discerning God's laws. The closest thing possible to that is a doctor of law who is also an authenticated doctor of theology. A JD +PhD /ThD (/DD, doctor of divinity, also possible). But even then that doesn't authorize someone to be able to declare to other ppl, that their interpretation of "God's law" should authorize police and military to aggressively penalize these ppl, if they disobey it. What if you don't like the chosen /authorized interpretation of God's law? Do you have any recourse, or is your freedom of speech and of press infringed, because it damages your social contract of theonomy?

See above.

You still didn't answer that. Who would make that choice? What happens when they die? Who takes over? How does that succession work? How does the nature of their chosen interpretation relate to the chosen /authorized interpretation of their successors in the future? Are their successors authorized to change the authorized interpretation of God's law? Or do they have to preserve what the first generation chose /authorized?

 

[Idolater]

Brave words, but what's next - claims from the NRA that it's responsible for the sun coming up in the morning!

The 23% may chose to remain in denial, but when "Bato's" call for a ban on assault rifles during a Democratic Candidates Meeting has the support of 55% of Republican voters, the NRA should be desperate to make whatever deal it can before Trump and the Republicans are forced to jump ship!

Since you haven't replied to my first response by now, I'm going to pile on. I saw a fellow well regulated minuteman today in my travels, running an errand. He was middle aged, fifties; salt and pepper and enough worn that it wasn't just too much sun. 'Wore a small revolver on his hip, in a holster. Like a Saturday Night Special type weapon of war. I was wearing sunglasses and observed his weapon of war and him discretely as we traversed paths in a strip mall's parking lot. I didn't acknowledge him anymore than had he been an apparently unarmed man. He didn't acknowledge me either. But we are both minutemen. The laws, those infernal gun control laws, make it so that we can't acknowledge each other, because in a state where both open- and concealed carry is licit, without a permit, you still have to be careful about exposing yourself as CCW, if that's the choice you've made personally, influenced powerfully by laws that have been made against the right of the well regulated militia to bear arms, in plain contravention of the Bill of Rights.

Question, do you believe in the right to bear arms, or not? I ask because itt, Town believes in the right to bear arms, but his "right to bear arms" and my "right to bear arms" are different things entirely.

The UN doesn't even pretend to believe in the right to bear arms in any way, as a counter example. Town disagrees with the UN, and with me, and we both disagree with the UN, which doesn't even pretend to believe in the right to bear arms.

We both believe in the right to bear arms, but we mean different things by "the right to bear arms," me and Town---I'm curious whether you believe in the right to bear arms at all? Or not.

 

[jgarden]

I don't think so. If Democrats pulled 'a 180' and flip-flopped on gun control, and instead treated the right to bear arms like the right to get an abortion, and the right to not have the climate change, and the right to healthcare, they would sweep through every state of the country and form a lasting political dynasty. They're that close. Republicans exist because of the NRA, who fights to defend the right to bear arms. Without Republicans, the NRA will still fight to defend the right to bear arms.
Democrats should just accept that the right to bear arms is just like the right to free speech and the right to free press and the right to religious liberty and to privacy.
His "call" was for confiscation, let's be real clear on that.

Despite their lofty rhetoric, Republican politicians would gladly sell their souls to remain in office and given that this issue has the support of a mere 23% of the electorate, they will write it off as a "lost cause" and "jump ship" to preserve whatever is left of their careers!

America's youth and the woman's vote are solidly in the vanguard of gun reform, so the gun lobby and its supporters attempts to adopt a "hardline" approach will attract an ever diminishing number of voters!

The gun lobby currently has only a short "window of opportunity" to negotiate some common-sense compromises, if it persists to be "out-of-step-with-the- times" by its refusal to make concessions, it will eventually have lost so much political support that won't even warrant a seat at the "bargaining table!"

 

[Idolater]

Despite their lofty rhetoric, Republican politicians would gladly sell their souls to remain in office and given that this issue has the support of a mere 23% of the electorate, they will write it off as a "lost cause" and "jump ship" to preserve whatever is left of their careers!

idk what you mean by "23%" but I generally don't disagree with you about Republicans. I said the only reason they're afloat right now is because of the NRA, and that Republicans need the NRA, but the NRA doesn't need Republicans.

America's youth and the woman's vote are solidly in the vanguard of gun reform, so the gun lobby and its supporters attempts to adopt a "hardline" approach will attract an ever diminishing number of voters!

The gun lobby currently has only a short "window of opportunity" to negotiate some common-sense compromises, if it persists to be "out-of-step-with-the- times" by its refusal to make concessions, it will eventually have lost so much political support that won't even warrant a seat at the "bargaining table!"

The well regulated militia has made concessions since 1934, and we never should have taken our fingers out of the gun control dyke to begin with, a real life slippery slope has proceeded unendingly, and now ppl like you are acting like none of these prior concessions ever even occurred. We need to stop all this gun control nonsense right now. We've made enough concessions on a right that is protected by the Bill of Rights, with the language "shall not be infringed."

All we need is a Democrat who believes in the well regulated militia, and who will therefore fight for the right to bear arms like how Democrats fight for the rights to free speech, to free press, to get an abortion, to not have the climate change, to have healthcare, to have privacy, etc. None of the current batch of presidential hopefuls are that Democrat though---none of them.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So ... some sort of "expert," is what I'm gathering from that sort of response.

It doesn't take an expert to know right from wrong.

It's unclear but seems like perhaps people with doctorates in at least two disciplines, theology and law.

Again, it doesn't take an expert to know moral truth.

You did not specify, this is just me taking the pulse of your response to that question.

Whatever that means...

That backs up what I'm saying, you're thinking that someone accomplished in theology is going to be authenticating

Why does there have to be someone to authenticate it?

which of the numerous possible candidates are truly God's law, or God's laws.

Any person can do it, if they're honest and humble.

Your response indicates that you're thinking they would be able to articulate which particular candidate laws are authentic

"Authentic"?

:think:

:idea:

Can I ask you something:

Do you think that, if we were to completely overhaul the entire government and legal system right now, that the resulting laws would simply be copied from the Bible?

through some theological argument, which depends upon quality biblical interpretation, because when God's law is authenticated essentially the default or null hypothesis is that literature should be taken at face value unless it is demonstrated why it should not be taken at face value, which should be easy for an authentic authority in the discipline of theology to do. It should look easy for them.
Which Bible? And who gets to say which is the right interpretation of that Bible, that you mean? Would you say that the Bible is officially the 1900 version of the KJV? Why not the 1611 version? Why English, why would God only communicate in "King James" English, circa 1900? Did He previously communicate in 1611 "King James" English, but now He communicates in 1900 "King James" English? Or is the authoritative version of the Bible in "the original Greek?" And if so, then who authenticates any English translation /rendering of the Bible, or who has the power to formally annul an English version as representative of the Bible at all? iow who in your theonomy has the power to send police to arrest publishers of an English version of the Bible, that is outlawed to print, on an otherwise free press?

This is why I know you also mean that whoever is authenticating what God's law actually is, in your theonomy, must also be an authentic doctor of law, along with a doctor of the philosophy of theology.

You seem to be latched onto the idea (which did not come from me) that the Bible would be the source of the laws used in the formation of a government.

This is not what I said.

All I said was that the laws are "defined" by the Bible.

The source of the moral laws which apply to everyone everywhere at all times which are defined because God is righteous come from the concept of justice, and/because God is just.

Just for clarity, I also as a Catholic consider God to be the ultimate source of truth, in all matters of faith and morals, but not in political theory. That's where you and I differ, directly opposite. God does not prefer one political theory to another. He does prefer one theology and one morality, and He tells us precisely His will in these matters, but He leaves politics up to us. The implication is that He believes it's possible to have good government in any model of government imaginable, as difficult as it might be to believe.

I don't think He wants "politics," but rather a solid government, but I have a question for you:

Do you think that if God had a preference for a kind of government, that He may have implemented it in the formation of a nation?

The answer is, Yes, He does have a preference, and He did in fact implement it.

And while it didn't have a "constitution," per se, it did have a set of moral laws that could not be changed.

This is just classical liberalism.
By whom? Who sets them in stone?

God. Quite literally, in fact.

Do not murder.
Do not steal.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not bear false witness.

I've set out that from what I gather it must be a doctorate in the philosophy of theology, plus a doctor of law also. iow, what I'm getting at here, is that there's no discipline for authentic authorities specializing in discerning God's law or discerning God's laws. The closest thing possible to that is a doctor of law who is also an authenticated doctor of theology. A JD +PhD /ThD (/DD, doctor of divinity, also possible). But even then that doesn't authorize someone to be able to declare to other ppl, that their interpretation of "God's law" should authorize police and military to aggressively penalize these ppl, if they disobey it.

You seem to be putting the cart before the horse.

Which way does authority naturally flow?

What if you don't like the chosen /authorized interpretation of God's law?

This is a bit of a loaded question, as there is no need for an "authorized interpretation" of God's law. God's law is clear enough to be understood without interpretation. In any case:

I'm going to answer this with a hypothetical scenario.

Let's say, as above, that we were to implement a constitutional monarchy. It only has 4 main criminal laws, that cover multiple smaller laws, and a "Code of Use" that regulates real estate zoning and use of infrastructure.

This goes back to my question about the flow of authority...

Do you think that the King has the authority to in any way change the moral laws?

Do you have any recourse, or is your freedom of speech and of press infringed, because it damages your social contract of theonomy?

Need you to answer the flow of authority question first.

You still didn't answer that.

I did, but you're too focused on the authority that man has. Try looking higher up the food chain.

Who would make that choice?

This is why I don't think you understand where I'm coming from.

There's no "choice" involved when it comes to whether a law is moral in nature or otherwise.

It is either a moral law or it is not.

What happens when they die? Who takes over? How does that succession work? How does the nature of their chosen interpretation relate to the chosen /authorized interpretation of their successors in the future? Are their successors authorized to change the authorized interpretation of God's law? Or do they have to preserve what the first generation chose /authorized?

:think:

See above.

 

[jgarden]

idk what you mean by "23%" but I generally don't disagree with you about Republicans. I said the only reason they're afloat right now is because of the NRA, and that Republicans need the NRA, but the NRA doesn't need Republicans.
The well regulated militia has made concessions since 1934, and we never should have taken our fingers out of the gun control dyke to begin with, a real life slippery slope has proceeded unendingly, and now ppl like you are acting like none of these prior concessions ever even occurred. We need to stop all this gun control nonsense right now. We've made enough concessions on a right that is protected by the Bill of Rights, with the language "shall not be infringed."

All we need is a Democrat who believes in the well regulated militia, and who will therefore fight for the right to bear arms like how Democrats fight for the rights to free speech, to free press, to get an abortion, to not have the climate change, to have healthcare, to have privacy, etc. None of the current batch of presidential hopefuls are that Democrat though---none of them.

Recent polls indicate that the majority of Republicans and gun owners already support the introduction of red-flag laws and a ban on assault weapons - the political winds no longer favor the gun lobby who like "Idolater" are living in a state of denial!

 

[Idolater]

Recent polls indicate that the majority of Republicans and gun owners already support the introduction of red-flag laws and a ban on assault weapons - the political winds no longer favor the gun lobby who like "Idolater" are living in a state of denial!

Polls on gun control fluctuate like the wind. And contrary to what ppl like you probably thought would happen, the massacres committed with guns has not led to capitulation on the side of the well regulated militia, but hardened resolve. It also has not led to gun control advocates getting deeper into philosophy justifying gun control, but instead philosophical gun control advocates are noticing the distortion of their thinking wrt gun control and the well regulated militia, and are turning into Second Amendment Democrats, adding the right to bear arms to their list of rights they defend, like the right to abortion, and to not have the climate change, and to healthcare, free speech and free press, free religion and morality, privacy, and other rights that most every Democrat defends. The crop of candidates in the presidential race this cycle are not 2A Democrats, the closest one is Sanders, who's basically supportive of the gun control you're advocating in your post above, but also not very energized by gun control. All the others are more aggressively supportive of gun control than Sanders, and Sanders is only the least of manifold evils, and he's not going to get the nomination anyway.

 

[Idolater]

It doesn't take an expert to know right from wrong.



Again, it doesn't take an expert to know moral truth.



Whatever that means...



Why does there have to be someone to authenticate it?



Any person can do it, if they're honest and humble.



"Authentic"?

:think:

:idea:

Can I ask you something:

Do you think that, if we were to completely overhaul the entire government and legal system right now, that the resulting laws would simply be copied from the Bible?



You seem to be latched onto the idea (which did not come from me) that the Bible would be the source of the laws used in the formation of a government.

This is not what I said.

All I said was that the laws are "defined" by the Bible.

The source of the moral laws which apply to everyone everywhere at all times which are defined because God is righteous come from the concept of justice, and/because God is just.



I don't think He wants "politics," but rather a solid government, but I have a question for you:

Do you think that if God had a preference for a kind of government, that He may have implemented it in the formation of a nation?

The answer is, Yes, He does have a preference, and He did in fact implement it.

And while it didn't have a "constitution," per se, it did have a set of moral laws that could not be changed.



God. Quite literally, in fact.

Do not murder.
Do not steal.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not bear false witness.



You seem to be putting the cart before the horse.

Which way does authority naturally flow?



This is a bit of a loaded question, as there is no need for an "authorized interpretation" of God's law. God's law is clear enough to be understood without interpretation. In any case:

I'm going to answer this with a hypothetical scenario.

Let's say, as above, that we were to implement a constitutional monarchy. It only has 4 main criminal laws, that cover multiple smaller laws, and a "Code of Use" that regulates real estate zoning and use of infrastructure.

This goes back to my question about the flow of authority...

Do you think that the King has the authority to in any way change the moral laws?



Need you to answer the flow of authority question first.



I did, but you're too focused on the authority that man has. Try looking higher up the food chain.



This is why I don't think you understand where I'm coming from.

There's no "choice" involved when it comes to whether a law is moral in nature or otherwise.

It is either a moral law or it is not.



:think:

See above.

Where in God's law is there the acknowledgement of the right to bear arms? Is the right to bear arms recognized in God's law?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Where in God's law is there the acknowledgement of the right to bear arms? Is the right to bear arms recognized in God's law?

Genesis 14, Luke 22:36, for starters.

 

[Idolater]

Where in God's law is there the acknowledgement of the right to bear arms? Is the right to bear arms recognized in God's law?

Genesis 14, Luke 22:36, for starters.

So then do you believe that there is a right to be forgiven? And that our laws should obligate victims of crime for example, to forgive the aggressors, and make it a crime to not "forgive those who trespass against us"? I ask because to me, the biblical references you provide do not support a right to bear arms nearly as well as a lot of other scriptures that command forgiveness support a right to be forgiven; by your reasoning, all scriptures commanding forgiveness, must support a right to be forgiven.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So then do you believe that there is a right to be forgiven?

No such thing, not even in scripture.

The law takes care (or tries to) of justice. Whether someone forgives the one who harmed them is another matter entirely.

Judges are to show no mercy to the criminal.

And that our laws should obligate victims of crime for example, to forgive the aggressors, and make it a crime to not "forgive those who trespass against us"?

Again, the government enforcing justice and a victim forgiving the one who harmed them are two separate (yes, overlapping, but still separate) issues. The government cannot force a victim to forgive (nor should it try), but it can and should punish the criminal.

I ask because to me, the biblical references you provide do not support a right to bear arms nearly as well as a lot of other scriptures that command forgiveness support a right to be forgiven; by your reasoning, all scriptures commanding forgiveness, must support a right to be forgiven.

Your argument is a non sequitur, because we're talking about how a government should act towards criminals, not how someone who has been wronged should act, two different topics.

Which do you want to talk about? Sin or crime?Pick one.

I will say this, regardless. There is no such thing as a right to be forgiven. In order for someone to forgive someone else, the latter has to repent.

[JESUS]Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.[/JESUS] - Luke 17:3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke17:3&version=NKJV

If the latter DOES NOT repent, then he should not be forgiven. If the latter does repent, then the former should forgive, but again, such cannot be forced, and a third party does not have the authority to forgive the offender for harming the victim.

There IS, however, a right to due process, which includes a fair trial.

 

[Idolater]

My view on the well regulate militia was changed recently.

It used to be that the well regulated militia are all those who carry weapons of war on our streets for all lawful purposes in a civilian capacity, but it's been changed now to all those who are good with and who carry weapons of war on our streets for all lawful purposes in a civilian capacity.

https://twitter.com/Nee_Nihilo/status/1182492984899706880

 

[Idolater]

No such thing, not even in scripture.

It's not like I thought there was. I'm just ascertaining the structure of your argument, and testing you to see if I'm understanding you properly, or if I need to study harder to 'catch your drift'.

The law takes care (or tries to) of justice. Whether someone forgives the one who harmed them is another matter entirely.

So then I'm gathering that you believe that God's theonomical law includes a right to not forgive, meaning that God's law does not prescribe penalty against someone, for not forgiving another party?

And furthermore "justice" to me means that government fulfills its duty to its people, and never infringes or disregards their fundamental human rights. When the parties do not include the government directly, then the government being just, is administering penalty to citizens who are obligated to pay damages to another party who has a right to recover those damages.

Judges are to show no mercy to the criminal.

Which means that all the times today that either judges or prosecutors show mercy, are crimes, according to your interpretation of God's theonomical laws?

Again, the government enforcing justice and a victim forgiving the one who harmed them are two separate (yes, overlapping, but still separate) issues. The government cannot force a victim to forgive (nor should it try), but it can and should punish the criminal.

So it looks as if I am reading you right, since it looks very much like here that you believe God's theonomical law recognizes a right to not forgive.

Your argument is a non sequitur, because we're talking about how a government should act towards criminals, not how someone who has been wronged should act, two different topics.

We're talking about how a government should act towards all its people, including and not limited to its criminals.

Which do you want to talk about? Sin or crime?Pick one.

I thought that God's theonomical law equates sin and crime. I thought sins are crimes, and crimes are sins, and the overlap is 100%, but it's sounding now more like there are sins that are not crimes, although all crimes are sins, in God's theonomical law.

I will say this, regardless. There is no such thing as a right to be forgiven. In order for someone to forgive someone else, the latter has to repent.

[JESUS]Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.[/JESUS] - Luke 17:3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke17:3&version=NKJV

If the latter DOES NOT repent, then he should not be forgiven. If the latter does repent, then the former should forgive, but again, such cannot be forced, and a third party does not have the authority to forgive the offender for harming the victim.

OK, but it is true though that according to your interpretation or your legal theory, God's theonomical law does recognize a right to not forgive, correct?

There IS, however, a right to due process, which includes a fair trial.

Certainly American liberalism defends the right to due process. And we also take great pains to prevent against penalizing law-respecting people. Even consciously choosing to accept some proportion of guilty parties being released in order to minimize the possibility of penalizing law-abiding, innocent people. Liberalism generally more highly values not penalizing the innocent, over penalizing the guilty. Ideally we would penalize all the guilty, and not penalize all the innocent, and we consciously err on the side of not penalizing all the innocent.

And having examined your examples of scriptures that you have provided to show that, according to your legal theory of theonomy, God's theonomical law recognizes the fundamental human right to bear arms, it looks as if your argument in interpreting this law involves seeing whether something is depicted in Scripture as permissible, especially if it is depicted in both Old and New Testaments as such, and especially beyond this if Jesus is recorded to have done that thing; then there is a right to do that thing. Is this correct?

 

[Idolater]

"Law's Empire"

This supposed attorney from Minnesota describes the current problem in law today (in 2014), over the past 40 years.

 

[ok doser]

 

[Idolater]

It is a moral matter when we're talking about a pre-political, natural, basic, fundamental, inborn, inviolable, inherent, absolute, intrinsic, and sacred, inalienable human right. The right to life. It means that your government is supposed to declare, recognize, affirm, acknowledge, honor, preserve, respect, protect and defend that right. The right to life. It means it is objectively immoral for a government to disregard, violate, infringe, abridge, offend, abuse, abrogate, that right. The right to life. And it is the same with all the other rights like that right. The right to bear arms is the right to life.

You're not wrong.

And it's a moral matter. For a liberal like myself, my liberalism is my political philosophy because liberalism is my moral philosophy which is my metaphysical philosophy ("Catholicism in the real world" is my moral philosophy, which is my political theory or philosophy). I am not a libertarian /anarchist (=same thing), I believe in big government if big government is what's best, such as the occupation of the Confederacy (Federal Reconstruction), and defeating the "liquor-state" that started developing during the Prohibition Era (when the right to consume drugs was outlawed across the country, a drug-dealing, black market, heavily armed and brutally violent businesspeople-based economy developed, as they have in Mexico and in Latin America right now at this moment, they are as violent as the rumrunners and bootleggers and purveyors of rotgut whisky were during Prohibition, as brutal as the Mafia whenever they were their most brutal, and both as violent and as brutal as some of the Native tribes in North America in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s).

The government should be as great and mighty and big and powerful as needed, to do their moral job wrt my right to bear arms. Which is my right to life.

Libertarians say that literally everything is better if you just let people figger out things for themselves, by making brain damaged choices that are them falling into a pit. I am not libertarian, I believe that preadolescents Must be taught to gravely prefer chastity in all matters, and to avoid any form of fornication with grave determination, because we believe in health, and it is statistically healthier to avoid fornication, all things considered, and so it is equally moral to teach preadolescents to invariably avoid any form of fornication at all costs, whether or not invoking the literal fear of God, for health. The fornication forms habits, it is plain as day to see, and it is simply immoral to permit, tolerate, condone, or encourage that youngsters fornicate in any form, for health.

 

[Idolater]

Right at the start of Plato’s Republic, Socrates examines the right to bear arms---did you know that? He examines the notion that the right to bear arms is absolute. He asks us to imagine that your friend asks you to hold some of his weapons for him. When he does this he is normal and healthy. Then he asks us to imagine that later on, your friend asks for them back. But this time he is concussed, or anyway not in his right mind. Socrates asks, would it be immoral to not give him back his guns in this scenario?

It strikes right at the heart of the position that the right is absolute. Because from one perspective, it would certainly be immoral to deny this man his own property. You don’t own his weapons, you are only keeping them for him, they are still his, and therefore from this perspective it would be immoral to withhold this man his weapons.

But Socrates’ scenario certainly prompts a question. What if a person is concussed, and not in their right mind? What then? Are we justified in infringing his right to bear arms, if he is concussed?

So on the one hand, and there are going to be three hands in this, there is what I call the war test. If we are at war with an invading army, and literally every American is a good guy unless there’s evidence to the contrary, would you in that war scenario, advocate that the person in question should be armed.

On the first other hand, there is also this. What if a grizzly bear starts charging at your friend, and he’s concussed and not in his right mind, but do you still deprive him of his own weapons? Do you in this case infringe his right to bear arms?

And then now on the other other hand, there is this. It’s just wrong to withhold from someone what is theirs.

So three hands to consider. The first unspoken hand that Socrates prompts is that when someone is concussed and not in their right mind, their right to bear arms should be suspended, until they have healed from concussion and are in their right mind again.

There are four different perspectives.

It would be wrong to suspend someone’s right to their own property.
It would be wrong to deny someone a weapon if they are in immediate danger.
And it would be good to give a fellow American a weapon during a war, so long as you don’t think he will use the gun against you.

So if someone is not in immediate peril, and we are not being invaded by a foreign army, and they are not concussed, then there is no reason to invade their right to bear arms.

So is the right absolute?

In order to fully answer this question we must look at another basic human right to see what it can teach us: The right against being raped.

Is the right against being raped absolute? Is there ever a scenario where it is justified to rape someone? Because that is the question when we ask, if it is ever justified to deny someone their right to bear arms.

The first defense that you will give me, is that rape is inherently immoral, it’s like murder, where in the case of murder it’s not just the taking of a life, but also it is done with malice aforethought, with full knowledge, and with deliberate consent. It is done to an innocent person who posed no credible threat against any other innocent party. There is no justification for it, and that is what makes it murder.

And so then I say to you, that is a good point, our right against being raped, and our right against being murdered, are absolute rights because of what rape and murder are. There is no justification for them, that is part of their definition.

So is there an equivalent definition for the right to bear arms, that includes the conditions that would elevate it to an absolute right, like how the definitions of rape and murder include in them the conditions that elevate our right against being raped and against being murdered to an absolute right?

 

[ok doser]

Gonna chew on this but consider: if my friend is not in his right mind, is it a moral position for me to take, to allow him to continue operating as an independent being, knowing that he will make decisions contrary to those which he would make in his right mind, act in ways contrary to which he would in in his right mind?

IOW, don't I have a moral duty, when I recognize that my friend in not in his right mind, to prevent him from acting independently until he is once again in his right mind?

 

[ok doser]

Is there ever a scenario where it is justified to rape someone?

yes, there is


but don't tell the bananahead I said so :chuckle:

 

[Idolater]

Gonna chew on this but consider: if my friend is not in his right mind, is it a moral position for me to take, to allow him to continue operating as an independent being, knowing that he will make decisions contrary to those which he would make in his right mind, act in ways contrary to which he would in in his right mind?

IOW, don't I have a moral duty, when I recognize that my friend in not in his right mind, to prevent him from acting independently until he is once again in his right mind?

The answer depends to a great degree on what is meant by being in one's right mind, compared with not being in one's right mind.

Since this thread is about arms, my mind wants to consider different scenarios concerning weapons to examine the question.

There are two things that we want to prevent or minimize, someone accidentally shooting innocent people, and someone deliberately shooting innocent people.

Concussion, or a stroke, or some other ailment might lead to innocent people accidentally getting shot. When I apply my "war" test to this scenario, I'm ambivalent about whether such a person should have their right to bear arms suspended. My reasoning would be that if there are invading enemies to defend ourselves against, then along with the chance that a concussed person might accidentally shoot innocent people (basically the risk of "friendly fire"), there still may remain a good chance that given the opportunity, the concussed person would still have the presence of mind to shoot the enemy.

When I apply my "charging grizzly bear" test to the concussed person, I believe that it would simply be immoral to deny the concussed person a weapon, and that even while concussed, in the case that they are being imperiled by a wild beast of some sort, we should reserve the concussed person's right to bear arms.

Concerning someone who would deliberately shoot innocent people, iow murderers, then I don't think there's any disagreement that they have forfeited their right to bear arms. Even in war, and even if they are being imperiled by a wild beast. I think it is good to defend such a person ourselves, but it is also justified to deny their right to bear arms if they are a murderer. The whole idea of arms is to protect innocent people, from invading enemies, from wild beasts, and from murderers, so naturally it doesn't make sense to recognize any right to bear arms residing in a murderer.