The right not to get shot amendment (Failed)

[bore]

This is basically the gun control argument that we are all familiar with, so I won't go into great detail about it.

Simply put, this amendment isn't about limiting gun control, although it will give the government more leeway in legislation. This amendment is about the fact that it should not be a right to own a gun- it's more of a responsibility. Unlike with freedom of speech or freedom of religion you don't, or at least shouldn't, come out of the womb with an innate right to own a gun. Gun ownership should be treated like drinking alcohol or driving or smoking- a dangerous responsibilty, which the constitution is silent on.

[bore]

I've always found the possibility of armed rebellion as a defence a bit perplexing. If the government really wanted to kill you, they could do so quite easily, whether you had a dodgy rifle in you home or not.

That would include certainly the right to defend oneself. All rights inherently come with responsbility, Senator bore. The right to vote comes with the responsibility to be an informed citizen, the right to trial by jury comes with the responsibility to serve on said juries when called and therefore the right to bear arms comes with the responsibility to follow are restrictions that are reasonable and do not form a conflict in my view this right, as well as to be well trained in the safe use of the weapons in question. We would not dream of removing the other two mentioned above, why should we countenance removing the latter on the account of it possessing an inherent responsibility?

The magnitude of responsibility in those cases is vastly different. If someone uses their right to bear arms wrongly, someone ends up dead, if people don't pay attention to the news they make a bad vote and someone incompetent is elected, if people don't respond to jury summons someone else is summoned.

There is a huge difference there.

[bore]

As someone who agrees with you, Bore, I feel obliged to point out that serving on a jury or voting the wrong way in the aggregate can easily result in deaths. Until we abolished the death penalty, in fact, that connection could be very direct. Which isn't to imply that either scenario is comparable to exacting vigilante justice or defending yourself from the mailman's petty tyrannies or whatever odd scenario gun fetishists can dream up.

Yeah, and I'd bet that's actually true of most rights. For example the right to follow whatever religion you want could lead to someone becoming a member of al qaeda, the right to free speech could lead to suicides, the right to drive a car leads to road accidents and so on.

The difference being that the step from the right to do something is far easier to imagine in the case of the right to bear arms.

[bore]

Aye