By What Right Do You Threaten Our Gun Rights?

No issue can be looked at in a vacuum. Therefore, as with any issue, we have to start with basic principles and moral implications. That means talking about the one moral imperative that guides us in all human relationships, the non-aggression principle. It is immoral to initiate the use of force or the threat of force against peaceful people. In other words, a person has to be actually engaging in aggression or credibly threatening to do so before it is morally justifiable to use force in retaliation. What does that have to do with guns? The mere possession of an inanimate object such a gun aggresses against no one. There is no moral justification for taking guns away from people who adhere to the non-aggression principle since this involves initiating the use of force to separate them from their weapons.

Property rights are part of this equation also. People have a right to their property. Guns are property. Separating people from their guns by force is theft of those weapons.

There is a moral justification for, at times, using force. That is self-defense. Since the initiation of force is immoral the right to self-defense seems obvious. Depriving people of their guns is clearly taking away part of their ability to use defensive force. This is another way that gun control is a violation of people’s rights.

 

Why does a non-aggressive person need an aggression tool?

 

For protection from violently aggressive people?
I guess it can be an aggression tool or it can be a defensive tool.
Maybe it is neither one until the time of actual use?
The person in possession is the one who decides what it actually is?

 

so I guess you think everyone can wear body shields as featured in the movie DUNE? are you saying cops carry aggression tools?

 

That is British style crap-ola, the so called "Offensive Weapons" concept, or equating personal defense to taking the law into ones own hands.

Often, a person with a concealed handgun permit is violently assaulted by an armed criminal offering grave violence forcing the law abiding person to defend themselves with their handgun, this often results in the death or at least, the injury of the attacker, British authorities would have the general public believe this act of self defense constitutes a criminal act when nothing could be further from the truth.

In the British version, you get killed by a criminal, the criminal is arrested by Pete the Constable real neat, only to serve 5 years in jail, and released to kill again, see anything wrong with the U.K. / British version ???

 

Moar British fallacy for moar gun control, The so called "Gun Epidemic" is caused by Criminals and their use of Guns, Firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens is the cure, not the disease, criminal activity is the epidemic and the cure is in the hands of law abiding citizens, that cure or antibiotic is "Guns & Ammo" !!!!

 

How sad is it that some people just don't see to realize this.

 

How sad is it that People do not realize that others would take away one's right to self defense by firearms ???

The erosion of ones Rights only leads to further erosion of those Rights.

Remember, some people think "YOU" do not have the Right to exist, and would take your life from you, do you really want to give up or have your Right to defend yourself restricted by some hack as they do in NYC,
when issuing restricted gun licenses as issued by the NYCPD ???

 

And criminals lose the right to use guns as well. Remeber as the OP said, nothing happens in a vacuum.

 

Nobody wants to ban guns they just want to make it harder for dangerous people to own them.

 

That is a foolish statement, Criminals, Felons, do not obey the laws, they still carry guns, sell illegal drugs, murder others, and the only people obeying those laws are the good guys.

A Criminal's career is predicated on breaking the laws of the land, how do moar useless laws that criminals will not obey, help us ?

- - - Updated - - -

So, if Criminals break the laws and do not obey those laws, how do moar laws help ???

 

Criminals don't break the law for the sake of breaking the law. They do it for a reason. Eliminate the reason, and the criminal has no reason to do the crime.

- - - Updated - - -

 

A lot of these shooters aren't criminals before they shoot people...

 

By what right. is the question.

Aggression is a feeling. We are not talking about feelings in the OP?

 

What an incredibly unobtainable belief. Proven fact since the inception of man. DDos (doubling down on stupid) laws does nothing to eliminate the reason as history proves. Try another concept. I favor eliminating criminals as they offer nothing to society, maybe we could ship them off to an island somewhere...eh?

 

A bicyclist over 18 breaks the law every time they ride on a sidewalk but will still pay their taxes. Explain that.

 

highlighted part is incorrect.

The self-defence laws in the UK are not that different to those in the US - http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/

 

Maybe if the morons of this editorial board actually understood what 'shall not be infringed' meant they wouldn't make such complete idiots of themselves. That was so nicely paraphrased by your little image. Thanks, I've rarely seen stupidity so clearly demonstrated...

 

The editorial board is of an American newspaper.

- - - Updated - - -

If criminals break laws why have any laws?

 

The editorial board just made its anti-gun slanted editing known to you here right?

That applies to the no infringement. Directly to the God given right to self defense.

 

Was that a misdemeanor or felony for riding on the sidewalk? I love your extremisms...eh!

 

I'm not too sure, but dodge noted. Explain what's happening here. Here's a person who clearly does not care about one section of the law but will follow another section of the law. Why?

 

talk about dodging...were you going to explain how you obtain the unobtainable or just bring your brand of extremism to the conversation?

 

Easy, I answered this thought experiment by thinking about it and realizing that criminals act according to their rational needs. Here's another one, a person steals a loaf of bread only after they can't pay for it anymore. How do you explain this?