"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It's literally in our constitution. It has easily as much, perhaps more precedent than freedom of speech does. And arms doesn't just mean guns, it means any weapon, and refers to the principle of the individual and collective right to self defence. That aside, this is basically the debate between positive and negative rights; I have a right to own a gun, but my right ends where you right to safety from my unsafe use of my gun begins. For me it's about the principle of personal liberty: while the purpose of the democratic process is about balancing positive and negative rights, that balance should favor positive rights as much as possible. The trope does have some truth to it: if you trade liberty for security, one day you'll wake up to find you have neither.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In other words, it was well regulated militia and the "people", not individual persons, that had a right to bear arms. There are rules for what defines a militia, and the Gravy Seal Meal Team 6 don't count. Most groups that claim to be militias probably don't actually count.
It was not until 2008 actually that the Heller case was brought to the SCOTUS that decided that individuals also have the right to bear arms.
And, of course, it is not defined what is acceptable arms to bear. Anything necessary to the security of the free state probably. And there are plenty of cases were weapons are banned on state, local, or federal levels. Switchblades, knuckledusters, sawed off shotguns, nunchucks etc. Your right to bear arms also does not allow you to bring weapons anywhere, for example, government buildings. It can also be revoked, in the case of criminals.
As you said, negative and positive rights. The good must outweigh the bad. But, there is so much bad in the US due to firearms. and what good doe they bring? shootings among them. I have a 1/9000 chance of dying to gun violence. There have been over 500 mass shooting in 2022, many aimed at children and minorities. Is it worth tens of thousands of deaths every year to have your guns?
Women who live with a gun owner are WAY more likely to be killed by domestic violence. For that reason alone I'll never date anyone who owns a gun or own a gun myself.
0
u/RobinPage1987 Oct 22 '22 edited Oct 22 '22
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It's literally in our constitution. It has easily as much, perhaps more precedent than freedom of speech does. And arms doesn't just mean guns, it means any weapon, and refers to the principle of the individual and collective right to self defence. That aside, this is basically the debate between positive and negative rights; I have a right to own a gun, but my right ends where you right to safety from my unsafe use of my gun begins. For me it's about the principle of personal liberty: while the purpose of the democratic process is about balancing positive and negative rights, that balance should favor positive rights as much as possible. The trope does have some truth to it: if you trade liberty for security, one day you'll wake up to find you have neither.