Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: IMO This song defines our debate [View all]friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)109. Practical considerations aside, you seem to be veering into Robert Bork territory:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=335504#335606
Strange seeing Robert Bork's theory of moral harm espoused at DU
For those unfamiliar with it, Dan Baum's recent (August 2010) article in Harper's related this to the objection to open carry:
Strange seeing Robert Bork's theory of moral harm espoused at DU
For those unfamiliar with it, Dan Baum's recent (August 2010) article in Harper's related this to the objection to open carry:
.....My friends who are appalled by the thought of widespread concealed weapons aren't impressed by this argument, or by the research demonstrating no ill effects of the shall-issue revolution. "I don't care," said one. "I don't feel safe knowing that people are walking around with guns. What about my right to feel safe? Doesn't that count for anything?"
Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971, in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal that knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.
Its as bad an argument now as it was then. We may not like it that other people are doing things we revilesmoking pot, enjoying pornography, making gay love, or carrying a gunbut if we arent adversely affected by it, the Constitution and common decency argue for leaving it alone. My friend may feel less safe because people are wearing concealed guns, but the data suggest she isn't less safe....
Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971, in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal that knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.
Its as bad an argument now as it was then. We may not like it that other people are doing things we revilesmoking pot, enjoying pornography, making gay love, or carrying a gunbut if we arent adversely affected by it, the Constitution and common decency argue for leaving it alone. My friend may feel less safe because people are wearing concealed guns, but the data suggest she isn't less safe....
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
129 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
What you said. I find it jawdroppingly absurd that someone considers
Common Sense Party
Sep 2012
#13
Being ready, willing, and able to defend yourself is not anti-social behavior.
Atypical Liberal
Sep 2012
#6
You are hanging your ignorance out in public view, and that is certainly anti-social.
PavePusher
Sep 2012
#84
Good for you. Enjoy your "proper holster". Hope it makes you feel safer.
Starboard Tack
Sep 2012
#90
That's like saying, "I will wait until I get injured to buy insurance." N/T
GreenStormCloud
Sep 2012
#101
The fact that it is none of my business does not mean it isn't anti-social behavior.
Starboard Tack
Sep 2012
#68
You've now implied and insinuated that lawful carriers have criminal intent.
PavePusher
Sep 2012
#97
Actually, it's more like going to a card game and not announcing that you have HIV
petronius
Sep 2012
#87
"it's ridiculous to characterize the carrying of an inert object as sneaky, deceitful, anti-social"
Starboard Tack
Sep 2012
#99
I left out the word "gun" too, since the point applies to any object a person
petronius
Sep 2012
#108
Speaking of anomalous, your conception of personal boundaries is the most unusual
petronius
Sep 2012
#113
Like many other items, an improperly managed firearm can be hazardous. As a result, people
petronius
Sep 2012
#118
I disagree, there is no "until" - mere presence is not a meaningful public safety issue, and
petronius
Sep 2012
#121
You should be safer than the police and definitely safer than the criminals.
Starboard Tack
Sep 2012
#127
Hard facts = real data, not moral panic over other people's actions that you disagree with.
hack89
Sep 2012
#49
"I see it as foolish, unnecessary and socially regressive.." looks like a personal judgement to me.
hack89
Sep 2012
#59
If you are discretionary about carrying, as you say, then I have no issue with you.
Starboard Tack
Sep 2012
#63
What does being a store clerk or being a woman being raped have to do with you carrying?
Starboard Tack
Sep 2012
#42
Since I have no family to follow (here in Texas), the question is non-applicable...
Eleanors38
Sep 2012
#60
"If you have already suffered violent attacks or threats, then you should consider carrying."
PavePusher
Sep 2012
#76
You became a victim the moment you first walked out the door wearing a gun.
Starboard Tack
Sep 2012
#79
Practical considerations aside, you seem to be veering into Robert Bork territory:
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2012
#109
"It's hard to come up with more anti-social behavior than carrying a concealed handgun...
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2012
#21
"It's hard to come up with more anti-social behavior than carrying a concealed handgun"
DWC
Sep 2012
#80
Cheryl Wheeler is a hypocrite. She has no problem playing gigs in gun-friendly Vermont.
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2012
#33
I round-filed the person accusing lawful owners/carriers of criminal intent.
PavePusher
Sep 2012
#125