Does Right To Own Guns Trump Right To Live?

[Dont call me Shirley]

This is the core belief of avid gun owners, of which they may not be consciously aware. Guns were created to kill. That is their use, their intent, the reason for their creation, to take or maim a living being. Inanimate target shooting is a higher evolution of their existence, but make no mistake killing is their intended purpose of existence.

Gun right defenders are telling those who choose not to participate in the ownership of guns that their right to own a device created specifically to kill trumps our right to live our lives. That is crazy-making thinking. Intentionally killing or harming a living breathing being is not a Right. Rights are based on life-affirming actions, not life-denying actions. Attack, in any form, is a life-denying action.

This current Gun-Frenzy is a hoarding illness, but with deadly consequences. It is an addiction, an addiction that is tightly bound with violence and fear. It is a false belief, a false belief that one has the "Right" to kill for any reason, a false belief that a gun will inevitably keep you safe.

The Right to Live trumps the "Right" to kill. The Right To Live trumps the "Right" to own guns.

In Peace there is no need for guns. Peace is the only true safety. It is going to take a lot of individual work casting off false beliefs, but We Can Live Together In Peace.

[Turbineguy]

1. That belief is a derivative

of protecting gun sales. It's the gun sales that are important.

It's a bit like a car salesman telling just how badly you need that new car. Except of course that the intent of the car is not to kill people.

[Hoyt]

2. +100. Even if one accepts "right" to carry/own guns, it doesn't mean good/civilized people should.

People have a right to fly a confederate/nazi flag too -- but should they?

People have a right to drive a gas guzzling Humbee -- but should they?

In some areas, people have a right to smoke stinking cigars outside around others -- but should they?

There are plenty of other examples.

[BainsBane]

3. "My rights trump your dead"

This was posted in the gungeon a while back to great applause. They hailed it as a valiant defense of their rights. I expect many of you will find it as horrific as I did.

[passiveporcupine]

33. Does he really thing that fighting in the Iraq or Afghanistan war

was done to protect our second amendment?

Sorry...it wasn't even done to protect lives here at home. It was done to spread democracy and control. , for money, power, and oil.

So please, war hero, don't try to change the message and use an unlawful and heinous war that killed far more Iraqi's than it did American troops, to excuse the trajedy of the gun horror show we live with daily here in the US.

The problem with these guys is that they are so emotional about this "fear of their toys being taken away" that they will fabricate any story to sell themselves on why we can't have gun control here.

And the right wing media/radio and NRA are helping to spread those "lies".

[BainsBane]

34. Not only that, he thinks it makes his right to have guns more important

than the lives of children. It makes his rights more important than ours.

[passiveporcupine]

40. Yes, but that I expected from a gun nut. The NRA sells that loud and clear.

It's using the war as an excuse that really blew me away.

I really think it is time to amend the 2nd amendment and just wipe it out.

I have no problem with hunters have a hunting rifle, even with it hanging in a rack in the cab of their pickup). I also understand the need for livestock owners to have a gun, because sometimes you need to put down a sick or injured animal and that is the fasted and least painful way to do it. For example, riding on long trail rides in the mountains and having a horse or pack mule go down with a broken leg...shooting it may be the only way to end it's suffering.

But we are not sensible about guns any more. Deadly weaponry that is designed for war and multiple killings without concern for collateral damage, is not something people need at home. Just like we don't need bombs, or grenades, or other fun stuff that goes boom.

I used to shoot targets when i was a kid (22 rifle) and it was fun. I get that. But that is not why people seem to need auto fire assault weapons with huge rounds on them. This is not about "freedom", or even the 2nd amendment, or self-defense. It's about either needing guns for illegal purposes (with every intention to use them to kill someone) or about little boys who never grew up. And about the NRA and gun manufacturers who don't want to lose their market.

[Electric Monk]

38. Links

The original "My right trumps your dead" thread.


but notice also how many tombstones there are in that thread.

[smirkymonkey]

50. +1000

[Bettie]

76. I have been told several times

by different, gun loving people, that the death toll of guns is just "collateral damage" and "the price we pay for our freedom".

Two of these are my brothers and I am sickened to be related to them when they say things like this.

[treestar]

82. OMG there is something wrong with him

What was he really fighting for in Iraq? Not our right to be governed by elected leaders apparently. The seething violence underneath.

[Thinkingabout]

4. I own guns but I don't go around saying I want to start a race war, civil war, etc.

I also realize there are some people do not have the proper control to own and possess guns. I understand the hunting aspect, I also enjoy the fruits of game hunting but the idea everyone should have guns is just not right. Congress should be able to enact bills which puts some restrictions on those not capable of using guns properly, it is the sensible thing to do.

[JDPriestly]

24. I have several relatives who hunt. They are good, kind people. I think we need to emphasize

re-establishing a movement for tolerance and peace within our communities, cities and country rather than point our fingers at what other people do wrong.

I'm sure there is much more that most of us could do to promote peace in our communities than pointing our fingers at gun-owners.

I'm not in favor of owning guns, but I think it is easy for those of us who do not own guns to point fingers at others instead of doing the difficult, positive organizing to promote understanding among races and ethnicities that needs to be done.

It's just so easy to try to change others, so difficult to work on ourselves.

Hate is the problem here. The guns would not be such a problem if we did not worship hate and violence in our culture.

[Thinkingabout]

35. Pointing fingers at the NRA for fighting sensible bills to hold people and gun dealers

Responsible for their actions is not acceptable. We have license to drive on our roads, the vehicles are registered, either have insurance or be financially responsible for damages or injury, having inspections of vehicles for safe operation, this is acceptable. Our food is inspected, restaurants are inspected and licensed, places which serve alcohol are licensed and are held responsible for overseeing, even the people serve are licensed. What makes the gun industry so special?

[JDPriestly]

46. True. I would favor requiring gun owners to insure their guns and to post bonds to cover

potential damages from gun incidents.

I don't see how the NRA can rationally object to that.

[Thinkingabout]

48. And they very successful in scaring some of their members into thinking

"they gonna take your guns away".

[JDPriestly]

66. Around the world, people hunt and eat what they kill, and most other countries in which

there is a lot of hunting do not have our murder rates.

It's our culture. The NRA may be part of the problem, but their popularity may be the result of a problem. I don't know which.

[BainsBane]

54. The problem isn't gun owners

It's the NRA and the similarly minded zealots. Most gun owners actually support increased gun control.

[Thinkingabout]

80. Very true, NRA thinks everyone should have guns, manufactured by the groups they represent

I know there are many more responsible gun owners than those who are ill responsible. If there wasn't a lot more responsible gun owners there would be many more deaths by gunshots. They are hunters and I don't want to see this group losing the ability to own and possess weapons, they enjoy the sport of hunting and along with myself I enjoy the bounty from hunting. I own guns and if they requested those to be registered I would gladly register my guns.

[oneshooter]

77. Then you are guilty, and have blood on your hands. According to this DU poster.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026869796#post7

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Very good post

And of course the 2A offers plenty of room to hide behind.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

36. I call them "The #2s".

[BainsBane]

39. LOL

I'll have to use that one.

[Paladin]

6. "My right trumps your dead." From the 3-11-2013 speech of Aaron Weiss.

Google the phrase and you can watch it. It's a wildly popular speech amongst the gun rights absolutists. Have no illusions: these people don't give half a fuck about the carnage that accompanies their open-and-easy acquisition of as many guns as they want. They proudly proclaim it, and dare us to do a single thing about it.

[Arugula Latte]

7. According to gun nuts, yes.

[cali]

8. I think lumping all gun rights defenders together is inaccurate

One can reasonably assume that all gun owners support gun rights to one degree or another, thus all gun owners are "gun rights defenders". And I don't think they all say or believe that their right to own guns trumps your right to live your life. It's the NRA contingent that are the nuts, not all gun owners. And whether one likes it or not, under the Constitution, owning a gun is a right. Hunting or target shooting flows from that Constitutional right.

Nor are all gun owners crazy or hoarding or addicted or bound to violence and fear. That's just hyperbole.

I live in a hunting culture. I know and have known, people who hunt for food. Some were back to the landers who lived a subsistence life largely by choice, like the guy I knew who lived in a log cabin he'd built with no power tools, chinked with moss and mud. Some people I know only target shoot. One is a nationally ranked, one time top silhouette shooter.

And sadly, I don't believe humans are at all good at living in peace with one another. History is pretty damn clear about that.

None of this is to say that I don't support stronger gun control laws, though I don't think they're likely anytime soon.

I also want to point out that beliefs are largely a personal matter. It doesn't really work to try and dictate which beliefs are true or false.

[Paladin]

16. Don't confuse "gun owners" with "gun rights activists."

There's a huge difference between the two groups. There are plenty of Democratic gun owners---I'm one of them. But "gun rights activists" are a product of the right wing.

[cali]

23. I didn't. The OP used the phrase gun defenders.

[drray23]

29. I would agree with that distinction and that is why

it is puzzling to me that we allow gun activists behaving exactly like the RW to be on this site. We even have a group for them. I know the democratic party "tent" is broad, but this is a little shocking to me. What they sometimes post, I would expect to see on the RW websites, not here.

[Paladin]

30. Our resident gun rights cadre has more leeway now than they used to.

And coming into the election season, the guns issue is really going to get ugly, both in General Discussion and in the Gun Control & RKBA group. It always does.

[Mojorabbit]

43. Well said nt

[villager]

9. That's what makes them the moral equivalent of climate deniers.

Nothing trumps their "right" to make sure their fetish objects are everywhere, no matter the cost to society at large.

[Man from Pickens]

10. It's not an either/or question

The right to bear arms is there in no small part so that people can defend themselves from crazed murderers. Should be obvious by now that the cops don't give a damn whether you live or die, and won't show up in time to defend you if they did.

[Eleanors38]

11. I am told the Deacons for Defense saw no dichotemy. nt

[hifiguy]

12. For many in this benighted idiocracy,

yes it does, and always will.

[One_Life_To_Give]

13. Not mutually exclusive

They can be used to prevent a starving Polar Bear from taking your life. Just as they can be used to prevent a Coyote or Fox from stealing your livestock. In the hands of an Audie Murphy or Alvin York they can also be used to secure food for the family or taking down the most dangerous of predators.

[aikoaiko]

14. No, in the same way that the right to free speech doesn't trump crimes involving speech

The civil liberty can be protected without condoning misuse of that liberty.

[Lizzie Poppet]

15. False dichotomy.

Last edited Fri Jun 19, 2015, 03:32 PM - Edit history (1)

No, it's not the "core belief" of anyone, actually. It's a false dichotomy. The right to live and the right to possess weapons are not mutually-exclusive.

The rest of your post is basically a collection of straw man fallacies and advocacy of pacifism. The latter is your perfect right, both to adopt and to advocate...but it is a long way from being a universally-accepted ethical maxim, and very strong ethical arguments can be made against pacifism.

[pintobean]

75. +1. It's so ridiculous

that it's absolutely dumbfounding to see normally intelligent people buy into it.

[onehandle]

17. Gun owners literally have more rights than non-gun owners in the U.S.

I own a Magic 8-Ball. Can I get special legal advantages and voting privileges?

The Second Amendment is a get out free card for gun nuts.

It's a burden on everyone else's right to keep their blood and internal organs intact.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. Specifically, what rights do you believe gun owners have that you don't?

[Electric Monk]

41. In Texas, for example, a CCW license is ok ID to vote, while a University Student ID card isn't.

http://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id

[cali]

44. a CCW license is issued by the government

and the requirement is government issued ID

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. You went and ruined a perfectly good rant with inconvenient truth

I like that in a person...

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. So are driver's licenses- so what's your point?

[Electric Monk]

52. I answered the question you posed in post #18 with a specific example. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. What has this "right" to use another form of ID while voting deprived others of?

What oppression has it wrought?

[Electric Monk]

55. It is harder for a university student (with photo ID) to vote than for a gun toter.

Voting is a pretty important right, right?


edited to add:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/04/in-houston-an-adamant-hillary-clinton-declares-war-on-voter-id/

(snip)

In case you don’t know, a student ID can’t be used to vote in Texas, but a concealed carry permit can. The implication: the Democratic Party’s base of young and minority voters are far more likely to be rendered unable to vote than the GOP’s gun-loving base. For Clinton, that's a situation that inherently ties her political fate to groups of voters she says are imperiled.

It was also no accident that Clinton’s carefully stage-managed speech was scheduled for Texas Southern University, a historically black college in Houston. After all, the current Voter ID law that governs voting in Texas was initially blocked by federal officials. Then, within hours of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2013 Voting Rights Act decision eliminating the requirement that states like Texas run voting changes past federal authorities, the state put the law into effect.

African Americans, even in big red states like Texas which the most hopeful Democrats insist sits on the verge of turning purple, remain a core part of the constituency that Clinton needs.

[yeoman6987]

57. The id is not government owned

Not even a question on why it is not accepted.

[NoGOPZone]

67. It doesn't bother the state of Kansas

they will accept a college student id, public or private school, as voter ID. And yes, there are questions, like why an ID from a state school wouldn't be considered a government owned and why Texas is selective about which types of government IDs they accept.

5. If I have a government-issued ID that contains my photo and it is not on the list above, may I use it?

If you do not have one of the forms of photo IDs listed above and your voter registration certificate does not have a disability exemption noted, you will only be eligible to cast a provisional ballot.

http://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id
http://www.gotvoterid.com/valid-photo-ids.html#idlist

[Duckhunter935]

58. Is the student ID issued by the state?

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. An obvious attempt to hang the Voter ID thing on gun owners

Even decidedly gun-averse Massachusetts allows Firearms ID cards as proof of residence
for voting.

Thin gruel, even by the notoriously lax GCRA standards.

[Duckhunter935]

65. Yep

Makes a good sound bite until you look at the facts.

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. Not only that, most gun owners don't *have* ID cards-not required where they live

Perhaps EM will inform us how, exactly, they are 'privileged' over other citizens...

[Duckhunter935]

74. I doubt he will nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. It seems that gratuitous swipe didn't work out as planned...

[GGJohn]

59. The difference, as I'm sure you know, is that a university ID isn't a govt issued ID,

whereas, a CCW license is a govt. issued ID.

Another fail.

[friendly_iconoclast]

61. Gun-averse Massachusetts allows Firearms ID cards to be used as proof of residence...

...while registering to vote

[GGJohn]

64. How dare you introduce facts into the conversation. eom.

[SoapBox]

19. Exactly.

[tymorial]

20. There can be no civil rights at the expense of another.

You have the right to have a gun but you do not have the right to use that gun to kill another. Doing so would deprive the other of their right to life. The best argument I can give is freedom of religion and freedom from religion. How often have we heard that America is a "Christian nation" and as such, Christian belief is used as a justification for banning same sex marriage. It is a preposterous notion. Religion as justification for legislation is a violation of our civil rights because it forces the citizen to acknowledge and accept religious doctrine. It is a blatant violation of the first amendment. So I say again, there can be no civil rights at the expense of another.

[imthevicar]

21. This is not an ether or arguement.

First Google or look up what "Well regulated" meant 250 years ago. then if you want to introduce a amendment to the constitution, we'll vote on it. My desecration will begin in 3...2..1.

[americannightmare]

22. Live by the sword, die by the sword...

Except some of those who don't live by the sword will still die by it.

[samsingh]

25. there are many cases where two people are armed and the murderer kills the innocent one

e.g. in language the nra understands - the bad guy with the gun killed the good guy with the gun.

simple inference, arming everyone will not eliminate gun deaths or death of innocent people with guns. guns do not always make you safer. generally, its the one imbecile with a gun killing many people at once - even when some of them are armed. Obviously, having a gun doesn't help if someone jumps into a room starts shooting people in the back with an assualt rifle. but these are facts, and facts, don't mean anything to the gun lobby and the imbecile blood soaked nra.

the true argument is about money being made by the manufacturers and others getting their personal thrills - while people are slaughtered all the time.

nothing is going to change in the near future, unfortunately. there is too much money, corruption, and a screwed up scotus to make it better.

[Skittles]

26. in America, yes

[CharlotteVale]

27. k&r

[HassleCat]

28. And we can have guns

You wouldn't know it by listening to the NRA, but we once had more restrictive gun laws than we have now. In the old Wild West, they didn't cotton to this "open carry" business in a big way, and the local sheriff would make sure you checked your gun for the duration of your stay in his town. And he would send plenty of deputies out on the streets to enforce the ban whenever there were cattle drovers, loggers, railroad crews, etc. in town to celebrate payday. Yes, everybody carried firearms in those day, and at least half the males in any western town served in the Civil War, and had seen men shot down like dogs by the dozens, so they knew it was just plain stupid to allow a bunch of drunk cowboys to stagger around town while armed. Here we are, over 100 years later, and not nearly as smart about firearms as they were.

[SheilaT]

31. Apparently yes.

And every time there's a mass shooting, or some toddler gets a gun and kills someone, there's a lot of pious hand-wringing about how terrible this is, and an absolute refusal to address the core problem: the guns themselves.

This most recent shooting does have the added element of racism, and so is being looked at as a hate crime. But I think that not matter what underlying rationale someone uses to go out and blow away a bunch of people, it's simply not acceptable. That little kids get ahold of guns should be completely not acceptable. And so on. But so long as the gun advocates continue to feel that their rights trump our dead (and at least someone was honest enough to say that) we'll continue to have these things happening.

And of course never lose sight of the fact that gun homicides are decreasing in this country. Isn't that special?

[Jack Rabbit]

32. According to some gun advocates, yes

For example, please click here.

According to me, no.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

37. Then there's this group...

[Matrosov]

42. "Your right to live is not on the Bill of Rights."

"But the right to bear arms is."

A justification I've heard and seen plenty of times, including when the Tactical Tier 1 Operator (aka RW trolls) on DU come out to play.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. Does the right to get intoxicated trump the right to not die from drunk drivers and criminals?

At least I have a right to self defense.

[BainsBane]

56. There is no right to get intoxicated outside your own home

and certainly not to drive drunk. Your logic is completely tortured, or rather non-existent.

Play with your fucking guns in your house all you want. Just stop working to ensure felons have access and that would be killers can walk around with guns in public. Is that really to much to ask? Evidently it is, since the gun lobby you support moves heaven and earth to ensure every single criminal, terrorist, domestic abuser, and killer gets as many guns as he wants. The only thing you criticize is people who want to stop that.

[GGJohn]

63. Wow. So little fact in that post. eom.

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. "Just stop working to ensure felons have access" Any evidence NU is doing such a thing?

If so, now would be a good time to produce it...

[beevul]

73. "The only thing you criticize is people who want to stop that."

"The only thing you criticize is people who want to stop that."

We disagree with your methods. Many of the methods you lot propose, are akin to amputating a leg because of a hangnail. "Assault weapon ban". "ban them all".

And some are just useless annoyances that don't terribly seem to effect people like the shooter in the most recent shooting. Yes, I'm talking about magazine capacity limits. The last shooting was committed with a gun of 104 year old design, and 7 round magazines. You lot swore up and down that magazine capacity limits will save lives, while pimping a 10 round limit. I'd say that the days of that argument are over, wouldn't you?


And most of the rest, such as registration, are things we'd never trust an ally with, let alone a group we don't trust. What on earth makes you think we'd trust the integrity and application of such things, to people like you who have plainly stated how they'd like to see government used to effect people like us, in an effort to get at people who would misuse firearms.

Not to mention that "gun humper", "murder advocate", and so on, in addition to the way you lot treat us as individuals here on DU, other web sites, and IRL, do not exactly indicate that we could expect any degree of fair treatment if we allow ourselves to be cowed, shamed, bribed, or otherwise convinced, to roll over on to our backs and show our bellies like submissive little puppies, and accept what our 'anti-gun betters' know is good for us.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. Things would be so much better if you could trouble yourself to lose the snotty rhetoric.

Practically everything is wrong and/or lacking in facticity.

There is no right to get intoxicated outside your own home...

You have no right to get drunk inside your home either. It is legal permissible to get drunk inside your own home but it is not a right such as the right to be free of the violent predations of others.

Your logic is completely tortured, or rather non-existent.

Argument by assertion with no explanation.

Play with your fucking guns in your house all you want.

I don't play with my guns. The number of times I have gone shooting wouldn't take all my fingers to count. I have learned how to safely load, unload, fire and store a gun. Yours is deliberately insulting rhetoric that has no valid purpose, it only supplies you with an emotional release.

As far as playing with guns is concerned: I did buy my husband a gun last year so that he could, strictly for enjoyment's sake, go shooting.

It's a replica black powder percussion cap and ball musket.

Just stop working to ensure felons have access and that would be killers can walk around with guns in public. Is that really to much to ask?

What have I done to facilitate allowing killers to walk around in public?

I have, over the last several months since its announcement, congratulated President Obama on instituting a program to update the flagging NICS system which is used for conducting background checks. I have petitioned for expanding access to NICS to cover private sales.

If you argue the simple fact of my being allowed to buy a gun facilitates others committing heinous acts then you would swerve into -- albeit unwittingly -- into my original point.

Evidently it is, since the gun lobby you support moves heaven and earth to ensure every single criminal, terrorist, domestic abuser, and killer gets as many guns as he wants.

I am not a member of any gun lobby.

I would be interested to see where any of the RKBA advocacy groups have petitioned to allow domestic abusers and other violent criminals access to guns. Perhaps you could produce some evidence.

The only thing you criticize is people who want to stop that.

More emotionalism. I'd ask if you feel better but anyone this intent on being angry can only be angry and little else.

You can write your bullying little personal insults all you want; that doesn't make you any less wrong. It won't stop a single violent criminal. Grow up and get a hold of yourself and maybe some real work that focuses on the real reason behind violent crime -- not just gun crime -- can take place.

[beevul]

47. Outside of video extremists...

Outside of video extremists, the only people who think its a matter of guns vs lives, are the anti-gunners.

They confirm it every time they say "they love their guns more than they love the lives of children".

Its a cute gig if you can get it...

[X_Digger]

62. Does my right to not self-incriminate trump your right to life?

Does my right to be secure in my person trump your right to life?

Does my right to vote trump your right to life? (Think folks in the military under Bush the Dumber.)

What an asinine question.

No, no single right trumps another right. A random person owning a gun neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.

[PowerToThePeople]

69. No. Ban all guns!! n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. And what are *you* doing to that effect, aside from parroting that phrase?

[oneshooter]

79. Do you believe the same as this poster?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026869796#post7

[seveneyes]

72. When dealing with bullies

[rock]

81. Hell, not only is owning guns not a trump it's not even a high card!

[Rex]

83. Yes, always has and always will. In another time it would be, "do spears trump the right to live?"

As long as it is easy to kill, the mechanism for death will win out over the much harder - live and let live. Humans fail to be able to let each other live in peace.