The Right to Bear Arms

[Bonhoffer]

what about the right to arm bears? lol

 

[vajradhara]

hehe... in my dsylexia, i thought the OP said


The Right To Arm Bears!

 

[freealaska]

The ONLY "arms" I could support the right to bear without any reservation:

​

 

[419gam]

The shoould call it the second amendment privelage because that is what it has become. I have though not guilty of any criminal act lost the privelage of gun ownership. I don;t see how this could happen if it was really a right. In california when we learn to drive the DMV emphatically states that driving is a privelege not a right which is why the state can revoke your license. Firearm ownership despite what many claim and despite my wishes remains a privelege.

 

[mattjay]

I'm against any general gun ownership rights here in Australia.

We simply don't need them.

 

[Jetgirl]

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.

I think the founders were concerned with an unarmed population being subjugated by a government that may or may not become tyrranical.

I believe that any gov't that starts sounding like: "Oh, well, you don't have to worry about us being tyrranical, we'll just take those weapons back now..." should probably be watched, and the rifles should just go under the house.

But of course, this is only my opinion, I am not a psychic in touch with our founders (though it would earn me money if I were). I've been in a few situations where having a gun, even in the middle of suburbia, is entirely justified: for instance, I worked on a horse ranch in the middle of a very rich suburban upper class neighborhood. We were not allowed to have on hand large enough doses of narcotics to put a horse down... so what were we going to do when an unfortuante beast disembowled itself on a fence, wait an hour or two for the doctor or go get the shotgun?

I also think though, that what weaponry a citizen chooses to keep is their business, until they use said weaponry in an illegal fashion.

 

[Jetgirl]

Gun control addresses a very limited piece of the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment and whether or not those rights should be infringed upon. I would be interested in anyone addressing how the right to bear arms should be infringed upon (id so how) or whether or not it should remain un-infringed.

If you'd like to have a Sherman Tank in your back yard, so be it. It's still illegal for you to kill me with it...unless in self defense (but I'm not hardly that threatening).

I myself, would like to be armed and ready for an invasion of zombie hordes. You just can't ever be too careful.

 

[Jetgirl]

I'm against any general gun ownership rights here in Australia.

We simply don't need them.

Do you have any places in Australia where animals might attack livestock or humans?

Edited to add: and do you trust the government to always be like it is now?

Ahem, cough cough, Zimbabwe is a good example, aherm...

 

[ChrisLockhart]

What sort of gun ownership rights does Australia have currently?

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

I submit the following:
_____

Should Jews Sell Guns?

Selling the tools of violence to people prone to violence violates the biblical prohibition of “setting a stumbling block before the blind.”

By J. David Bleich

This is one view among several possible Jewish views of the ethics of selling firearms..Excerpted with permission from Sh’ma: A Journal of Jewish Responsibility, 11/214, May 15, 1981.

To: Mr. Isaac Goldstein, Proprietor
Rocky’s Pawn Shop
Elm Street
Dallas, Texas


Dear Mr. Goldstein:

Time Magazine reports that you are giving serious consideration to discontinuing the sale of handguns in your establishment. No doubt, the recent attempt upon the life of President Reagan is prompting such soulsearching not only on your part, as proprietor of the store which sold that particular gun, but on the part of countless other gun dealers as well. Permit me to draw your attention to one aspect of Jewish teaching which should figure prominently in such deliberations.

Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Laws of a Murderer 12:12, paraphrasing Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 15b) declares: “It is forbidden to sell heathens weapons of war. Nor is it permitted to sharpen their spears, or to sell them knives, manacles, iron chains, bears, lions, or any object which can endanger the public; but it is permitted to sell them shields which are only for defense.”

Mr. Goldstein, a sticker on the door of your shop reads, “Guns Don’t Cause Crime Any More Than Flies Cause Garbage.” Maimonides disagrees emphatically. In explaining the premise upon which this provision of Jewish law is based, Maimonides tells us that in selling arms to a heathen “one strengthens the hands of an evil-doer and causes him to transgress” and “anyone who causes one who is blind with regard to a matter to stumble--or one who strengthens the hand of a person who is blind and does not see the path of truth because of the desire of his heart violates a negative precept as it is stated, ‘you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind.’”

This precept was understood by the Sages as an admonition designed to protect not only the physically blind, but the intellectually and morally blind as well. A Jew is forbidden to take advantage of another person’s lack of awareness in a way which causes harm to that person or others. The Torah forbids us to mislead the blind and thereby cause them to stumble. We are forbidden to give the uninformed misinformation or poor advice; we are forbidden to prey upon, or pander to, the predilections of the morally blind.

These restrictions are part of Torah and accepted by Jews because such is the divine command, but they also happen to make good sense.

Jewish law recognizes that indiscriminate sale of weapons cannot fail to endanger the public. The daily newspaper confirms this deep-seated distrust far more often than is necessary. As the bearers of an ageless moral code, Jews ought to be in the vanguard of those seeking to impress upon our legislators that handguns are indeed “stumbling blocks” which must not fall into the hands of the “blind.” Criminals do commit crimes, and it is precisely because “morally blind” criminals are disposed to crime that Judaism teaches that it is forbidden to provide them with the tools of their trade.

Yes, Mr. Goldstein, flies do not cause garbage, but garbage does attract flies. Guns may or may not cause crime, but crimes of violence cannot be committed without tools of violence. Self-restraint in the sale of weapons is a small enough price to pay for even marginal enhancement of public safety.

Sincerely yours,

J. David Bleich

Rabbi J. David Bleich is Rosh yeshivah and Rosh Kollel Lehora'ah [i.e. he's no small potatoes when it become to being a rabbi - SSV] at Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary and Tenzer Professor of Law at Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, New York City.

Link: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/daily_life/BusinessEthics/BusEthics_Contemp_Issues/Should_Jews_Sell_Guns.htm
_____

I think that while individuals should be entitled (or, as Americans say, have a "right") to own firearms, I think that society as a whole is similarly entitled (or, to quote the Americans again, has a "right") to define and regulate this individual entitlement in the interests of the general welfare. I use the parentheses here because (orthodox) Judaism doesn't really have a concept of "certain inalienable rights" (to quote the US Declaration of Independence); rather we believe that we are endowed with certain, inalienable responsibilities and obligations.

Since I've brought up the subject of the US, I don't think that the 2nd Amendment ("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.") gives individuals, as the NRA claims, an unlimited right to own as many guns as they want; I cannot believe that is what the US Founding Fathers had in mind. Of course, I don't agree with people who want to ban individual gun ownership altogether either.

Here in Israel, if an adult wants to own a firearm, he/she has to apply for a permit from the Interior Ministry & the police. He/she will have to justify (to the satisfaction of the Interior Ministry & the police) why he/she wants/needs a firearm. If his/her request is approved (there are background checks, medical checks, etc.), he/she will have to take and pass an accredited firearm safety course before he/she can actually purchase the weapon. The permit has to be renewed periodically and is subject to revocation.

There are so many guns & firearms here, whether they belong to military or police personnel or are privately owned. But the incidence of violent crime involving the use of firearms is relatively tiny in comparison to what it is in the US. I think this is partly because most Israelis have done military service, in which purity of arms is drummed into us. I wonder what factors explain why the incidence of violent crime involving the use of firearms is so high in the US in comparison both to countries in which firearms are prevalent (like Israel) and countries where they are not (like Japan & elsewhere).

So, whaddya think?

Be well!

ssv

 

[ChrisLockhart]

I think that while individuals should be entitled (or, as Americans say, have a "right") to own firearms, I think that society as a whole is similarly entitled (or, to quote the Americans again, has a "right") to define and regulate this individual entitlement in the interests of the general welfare.

The first instance of 'right' is correct as far as the American use, the second instance is not a 'right' so much as an obligation. The Oxford dictionary defines 'entitle' as "give (someone) a right to do or have.", so to be entitled would mean to have a right, and defines 'right' as "a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.". So, to have a right, means to be entitled.

I use the parentheses here because (orthodox) Judaism doesn't really have a concept of "certain inalienable rights" (to quote the US Declaration of Independence); rather we believe that we are endowed with certain, inalienable responsibilities and obligations.

If you have these obligations, then are you not entitled to act upon these inalienable responsibilities and obligations? Would you think that it is within the entitlement of another individual to prevent you from acting upon these responsiblities and obligations that you have? Part of the design of American society and government, at least in intention.. is to allow people do whatever they want as long as it does not infringe upon the ability of other people to do what they want. It's a difficult balance to find.. deciding what sorts of behaviours can feasibly be prohibited, because allowing them is more prohibitive on others than disallowing them is on the individual.

Here in Israel, if an adult wants to own a firearm, he/she has to apply for a permit from the Interior Ministry & the police. He/she will have to justify (to the satisfaction of the Interior Ministry & the police) why he/she wants/needs a firearm. If his/her request is approved (there are background checks, medical checks, etc.), he/she will have to take and pass an accredited firearm safety course before he/she can actually purchase the weapon. The permit has to be renewed periodically and is subject to revocation.

I like all of this except the requirement to justify why they want a firearm. Whether or not this is one of the big American flaws or not is up to debate.. but it is not American to give the government this kind of power and/or invasion of privacy.. It's also seen as allowing restriction based on somethign that is not concrete.

 

[tigercat73]

The right to own guns should never be infringed on IMHO
The only thing gun laws affect are law abiding citizens. The definition of a criminal is somene that doen not obey the law. So gun laws aren't going to affect them because they don't obey laws to begin with.
BTW.. I have never seen a gun get up walk out the door and kill somebody. I have owned and do own a few guns and I have yet to see them kill somebody. It takes a gun to be in someones hand that has intent to kill somebody. Don't prosecute the guns.
Well, that's my opinion.
Thanks
Dan

 

[mattjay]

Do you have any places in Australia where animals might attack livestock or humans?

Edited to add: and do you trust the government to always be like it is now?

Ahem, cough cough, Zimbabwe is a good example, aherm...

Yes, I assume plenty of farmers on large properties have firearms to protect livestock against animals like wild dogs. That I have no problems with, just firearms within the urban population is strictly controlled - I hope it stays that way.

I expect our country will be run by democratically elected governments for at least the rest of my lifetime. Our country has been politically stable for over a century now and I see no indications of why this would change (not counting foreign factors).

Zimbabwe had problems even before Mugabes 'dicatorship'. Guerilla warfare, economic sanctions and such...

 

[mattjay]

What sort of gun ownership rights does Australia have currently?

Hi,

just an excerpt taken from another website....


Several exemptions to the gun licensing schedule were made by most jurisdictions. Members of certain shotgun target shooting clubs were permitted to use self-loading shotguns and many rural property owners and professional shooters were permitted to use self- loading rifles and shotguns.

In Australia, handguns have only been available to bona-fide members of approved pistol clubs and to gun collectors. None of the changes to gun laws made in recent decades have affected the availability of handguns. Non-self-loading long-guns are readily available to Australians who are at least 18 years of age, have no police record and who pass a simple shooters licence test. As Australian gun laws have become stricter in the 1990's gun deaths have lowered; never-the-less, several serious weaknesses remain within the Australian gun law system. Too many Australians still die from gun wounds.

 

[Green Man]

The right to own guns should never be infringed on IMHO
The only thing gun laws affect are law abiding citizens. The definition of a criminal is somene that doen not obey the law. So gun laws aren't going to affect them because they don't obey laws to begin with.
BTW.. I have never seen a gun get up walk out the door and kill somebody. I have owned and do own a few guns and I have yet to see them kill somebody. It takes a gun to be in someones hand that has intent to kill somebody. Don't prosecute the guns.
Well, that's my opinion.
Thanks
Dan

This is very true.

 

[419gam]

My post seems to have been glossed over, but I would be curious to see responses about gun ownership in America being a privelage and not a right. I never been charged with, let alone convicted of commiting a crime, yet my "right" to bear arms has been rescinded. How can anyone take away a right. Dosn't this in reality mean that there is a revocable privelage to bear arms, but in acual fact no guranteed right? I shudder when I think what other rights might soon exist only at the government's dscretion.

 

[DaRkWoLf]

My post seems to have been glossed over, but I would be curious to see responses about gun ownership in America being a privelage and not a right. I never been charged with, let alone convicted of commiting a crime, yet my "right" to bear arms has been rescinded. How can anyone take away a right. Dosn't this in reality mean that there is a revocable privelage to bear arms, but in acual fact no guranteed right? I shudder when I think what other rights might soon exist only at the government's dscretion.

This actually came up at one of the shooting forums I go to. Believe it or not, states vary alot on this, although all states forbid felons (or those convicted of misdomenoer domestic violence) from owning modern arms unless their rights have been specifically restored by the state. For example, in some states felons can own blackpowder weapons while in some states they can own bows and crossbows. In my state of florida, felons can own "antique" firearms (labeled by the state as being antique, of course) and they can possess bows and crossbows; yet they may not own a non-antique blackpowder weapon. Quite fascinating.

Its definately being ionfringed upon. Although I dont personally believe (if it was my choice) that felons should have weapons of any sort, I believe that the Constitution gave us a right to keep and bear arms (swords, blades, destructive devices, ordinance, guns etc) and any accessories/items associated with them; and I can more than make do with just leaving it as a right, even if I do have to share it with ... felons ...

Also, whoever thinks this kind of legislation is working, think again; heres a personal story. A while back, a friend of mine & the familly (got a fellony conviction by association, he didnt really do anything) realized that I did alot of garage gunsmithing for fun. He brought over an old, 1891 Italian Carcano, and asked me to deck it out and keep it, as he thought I could have some fun with it. Although I dont find it ethical to mod "C&R"s I made an exeption as the request was personal. He more or less just gave me the thing (on the books, it was transfered legally; amazingly enough, dont evben ask me how that worked). Now think about this situation: A "felon" gives me a modern centerfire rifle; I have mom call a dealer friend of mine and have it transfered, and it goes through legally according to the gov't. Now what if I said this guy has a variety of other pieces? Now thats some governemt at work right there... not.

Heres another good example of how all of this regulation is media/press/re-election food: Just last saturday I got a shipment of 200 .308 diameter Tungsten core armor penetrating bullets. Not loaded rounds, just bullets. If I bought factory loaded rounds, that would be illegal. If I take these and hand load them into my own cartridges, its perfectly legal. People do this all the time, its extremely commonplace. In many rifle cartridges, its even legal to get them factory new; to my knowledge only the 7.62x51, 7.62x39, 5.56x45, and pistol cartridges are restricted, and even then one can still get the stuff legally as surplus (just not factory new, and im not sure how they manage to verify that). So not ony do we have a bill that makes AP handgun rounds illegal, but they make specific "politicaly incorrect" rifle rounds categorize as handgun rounds. It idiocity is almost ammusing. All this BS is made for the purpose of creating fear, and getting re-elected by making a "great evil."

Now think of this (just to put icing on the cake) : if the government restricts/limits/infringes on the 2nd ammendment, only the criminals will be well armed.