The right to carry a firearm is different form of “doing something” from say gay marriage. I agree (as do many conventional liberals) with libertarians that gay marriage is a private non-harmful decision. But firearms, at least when carried in a crowded urban area, cross the line from private to public from non-harmful to harmful.

Charles, I’m interested in your definition of harm in this case. What exactly is the harm in having a weapon that is carried concealed, never discharged, and never known to exist to anyone but the carrier?

Also, how does this harm equate with the harm caused by a law that ensures that the only classes of people who will be carrying guns are cops and criminals? Oakland and Richmond, California are two prime examples of this end-game of gun control. The continual murders and maiming of innocent people in these cities where the criminals with guns out number the non-criminals with guns is a truly staggering human tragedy.

The fact is that the most violent places in the United States have the strictest gun control. If we’re going to argue harm, it’s pretty hard to outweigh the fact that gun bans, literally, kill. If you feel differently, I can respect your feeling. I can’t accept a push to make laws that would enable more violence against innocent people based on that feeling.

…And that is *precisely* a symptom of democracies suffering from tyranny of the majority from time to time.

First, I want to thank you for coming here and being a civil and entertaining debate partner. I know you’re probably feeling like you’re in the “lions’ den” here, so I want to make sure you know that we appreciate debate, and we hope you stick around from time to time.

Second, your final comment about libertarians trying to be the tyrants reflects an unfamiliarity with libertarianism. While there are many variants within libertarianism, one of the common starting points is the non-aggression principle. I would suggest you take a look at the wikipedia article and let us know how it squares with your definition of libertarians as tyrants.

But firearms, at least when carried in a crowded urban area, cross the line from private to public from non-harmful to harmful.

I don’t believe your assertion can be supported by objective evidence, in which case it is simply your feeling, or your opinion. If otherwise, please provide some facts or statistics that demonstrate how the simple act of carrying a firearm becomes a harmful act.

Of course, discharging a firearm in a crowded urban area is a completely different story: This is where the “potential” becomes an “actual”. Then people really are harmed — physically — not just their feelings.

But you seem to think that the potential to do something wrong should be prohibited in the same way as actually doing something wrong. Naturally, I don’t agree, although I suppose I am in the minority these days — that is why I can’t buy “real” Sudafed anymore — I might use it to make methamphetamine!

And libertarians, e.g. you guys with the guns, get to make the rules. Sounds like tyranny to me.

No, we are not making up the rules, we are trying to eliminate the rules! Don’t like drugs? Fine don’t use them, and don’t allow them on your private property — just don’t tell me that I can’t use them. Don’t like guns? Fine, don’t use them and don’t allow them on your private property — just don’t tell me that I can’t use them.

Eliminating rules is the opposite of tyranny, fer gosssakes! Was the “North” being tyrannical when it eliminated slavery?

Thus Charles, in advocating secession, is really rejecting democracy. That’s a good thing; while he may be acting like a Confederate slave holder who advocated secession to preserve that “peculiar institution”, he at lest accepts the principle that people dissatisfied with the state should be free to exit its jurisdiction.

We don’t have to change his mind about respecting people’s rights. I suspect that that’s a lost cause. Rather, we merely need to get him to be willing to accept divorce. He then can live on his gun-free property on peace & allow us to go about our way unmolested and everyone wins! :)

Sure, as I’ve said above, you can keep your firearm. But all of you make a mistake when you assume that carrying your firearm in a crowded urban area is non-harmful. YOU feel it’s not harmful. But lots of people don’t.

What makes carrying a firearm in a crowded urban area harmful? That it makes you feel uncomfortable? You’ve indicated that someone who would do so is angry and trigger-happy, but you’ve shown no data to prove your point.

I’ll go one step further — what makes carrying a firearm *concealed* harmful? At that point you are no longer aware of the firearm, so your feelings won’t be hurt.

Finally, if simple possession of a firearm in a crowded urban area is harmful, wouldn’t possession of my fists in a crowded urban area be harmful? After all, they have the capability to be used as dangerous weapons, and probably to cause grievous harm to multiple people before anyone could stop me. Should I be banned from crowded urban areas? Do my 7 years of martial arts training make you think that I’m angry and punch-happy?

And libertarians, e.g. you guys with the guns, get to make the rules. Sounds like tyranny to me.

This is one of the most impressive reading-comprehension-fails I have seen in some time.

“anarchy – is the ideal – and any tangible steps in that direction are an improvement. If we must have a government, let it be strictly limited in what it is permitted to do, the more limited, the better. That means the more rights, such as the right to weapons, it respects, the better off we are.”

And libertarians, e.g. you guys with the guns, get to make the rules. Sounds like tyranny to me.

“The general principle here is that one person’s (non-harmful) actions should NOT constrained by another person’s feelings (respected or not).”

Sure, as I’ve said above, you can keep your firearm. But all of you make a mistake when you assume that carrying your firearm in a crowded urban area is non-harmful. YOU feel it’s not harmful. But lots of people don’t.

The right to carry a firearm is different form of “doing something” from say gay marriage. I agree (as do many conventional liberals) with libertarians that gay marriage is a private non-harmful decision. But firearms, at least when carried in a crowded urban area, cross the line from private to public from non-harmful to harmful.

Feeling and reason need of course to be balanced in the making of any decision. I don’t support denying rights, but I’m not willing to go as far as allowing your gun on my street.

In democracy, the people (or a majority of them) get to set the rules, and if those rules mean sending a minority to the gas chambers, or to work in the fields for no pay, the minority is legally SOL.

Rights protect individuals from other individuals or even from fairly large groups. Democracy is the mechanism b which a minority is dominated by a majority.

While stories of tyrannical dictators are legion, democracy is all too often associated with tyranny as well, and is often structurally worse.

There is no question, for example, that the existence of popularly eletced governments prolonged World War I & made it especially destructive.

From Reflections on State and War

The foundation and cornerstone of liberty is the institution of private property; and private — exclusive — property is logically incompatible with democracy — majority rule. Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else. Incidentally, before the outbreak of the democratic age, i.e., until the beginning of the 20th century, government (state) tax-expenditures (combining all levels of government) in Western European countries constituted somewhere between 7–15% of national product, and in the still young United States even less. Less than a hundred years of full-blown majority rule have increased this percentage to about 50% in Europe and 40% in the United States.

So what’s the alternative? I personally think that a regime where is no systematic violation of people’s rights – anarchy – is the ideal – and any tangible steps in that direction are an improvement. If we must have a government, let it be strictly limited in what it is permitted to do, the more limited, the better. That means the more rights, such as the right to weapons, it respects, the better off we are.

@Moderators: Perhaps delete the 09:51 post?

Thanks,

s.s.

ed: Done as requested

“one’s personal feeling should trump one’s respect for the rights of others.”

But this is EXACTLY why the pro-gun side fought for McDonald in the first place. The point is that I have to respect the feelings of gun owners but they don’t have to respect mine.

No, McDonald has nothing to do with “respect” or “feelings” — It is about the freedom to “do something” (possess a firearm).

That being said, I can respect your feelings even though I disagree with them. And just as I don’t think you should be required to possess a firearm even though I (and many others) think it’s a great idea, I would hope you would respect my desire to possess a firearm even if you (and many others) think it’s a bad idea.

The general principle here is that one person’s (non-harmful) actions should NOT constrained by another person’s feelings (respected or not).

In other words, if I feel safer with a firearm, that feeling should not in any way dictate or constrain your actions: You should not be required by law to possess a firearm. Conversely, even if you feel unsafe in the presence of guns, that feeling does NOT mean there should be a law that precludes me from possessing a firearm.

The point is not whether guns make anybody safe, the point is how I (and many, many others) FEEL.

I wonder if you would extend this point to a general principle, or if you think this only applies to firearms. Because (extending Tarran’s example) that kind of principle could easily be used to justify a law against non-English public speech (because some people “feel” threatened by Arabic, for example).

Of course, I would oppose such a law, on general principle, for exactly the same reasons I opposed the Chicago gun-ban. To (badly) paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes:

Your right to swing your feelings ends where the other man’s freedom of action begins.

If I were to threaten you in such a way, you would have a *right* to protect yourself against my threats.

Libertarians view the *right* to firearm ownership as a legitimate means of protection of your other inherent rights.

The traditional view of libertarians (note that both tarran and I tend more towards anarchism than most small-government libertarians), as well as the government described in the Declaration of Independence and created by the Constitution, is that government is created to protect the rights of individuals. Democracy, in our government, is a means to this end — the method by which we choose who will administer that limited government.

Unrestrained democracy, however, is well known for devolving into tyranny. Democracy, as tarran points out, propped up slavery, Jim Crow, and today props up the restrictions on same-sex marriage — even in blue states like California. Unrestrained democracy is a poor system for protecting the rights of individuals.

But based on your arguments to date, you seem unwilling to use the terminology of rights, referring instead to feelings, and you seem to be making the argument that rights are completely subject to democratic whims. And yet you accuse *US* of supporting tyranny?

Brad, indeed you could. And of course you have a right to. But that is no longer a democracy. If you don’t want a democracy, that’s fine. But then you should be honest and say that you support tyranny–specifically your tyranny over others.

But feelings are what lead to rights. Justice is often about what we feel. Maybe my feelings are irrational, but I’m not alone in this (although I may be alone on this website). The examples about Tagalog are misleading. Languages and guns are both tools, yes, but language does not pose an immediate threat to your safety.

Both you and Brad assume that I’m alone in my feelings about guns and you keep on quoting statistics and facts in the presumption that somehow these facts will be persuasive. But I suspect there are millions who feel as I do. We may be too few or too unlucky to change the law, but we don’t feel McDonald is fair. You may not care, but I’ll be making sure the people I vote for are prepared to disarm you if you come to my urban area.

My point is that when Alito wrote the majority opinion for McDonald he talked about costs. But his focus was really only on financial costs. He (and you gun owners) weren’t interested in compromise, or meeting non gun-owners half way. You needed the whole pie. Alito should have talked about the costs to democracy.

Note to Tarran: You express contempt for democracy, but democracy brought you this decision. So you support tyranny? Your tyranny over me?