|
Hmm .. I didn't think of it when I wrote it, but the reality is that
that is one of the fuzzy ones. Does the right to bear arms include the right to:
- Drive around with a boot full of ammonium-nitrate with fuses intact.
Is OK to park outside this nightclub officer?
- Have your own atomic bomb in your basement.
You can have my atomic bomb when you pry it out of my dead hot glowing fingers!
I don't think it does. Let me suggest:
- You have the right to defend yourself and your family.
- You do not have the right to stop others defending themselves.
A gun is a great weapon for self defence - unfortunately it is
also a great weapon for offence, and therein lies the difficulty.
- You have the right to the means necessary to protect yourself.
- You do not have the right to the means to attack others.
And there is a clear tension between these two, and yes, we are going to
argue about it for as long as society exists. The main objection to gun control is that it is controlled my morons. The
same people who think that passing a law that 'people must be paid more'
will decrease poverty probably also believe that 'outlawing guns will
make society safer and more peaceful'. Clearly they are morons. The fact that the goverment has tried to take
away my ability to defend myself in my home is irritating, but I would accept
it if the reasoning were rational and I saw a utilitarian benefit. Hence my objection to gun control is actually pragmatic rather than
moral. But thanks for raising this - it actually hadn't occured to me.
Feel free to think of a rule for this.
| 
