Interesting continued discussion. I have two follow up questions:
1. If you are supporting banning "assault rifles," I think it's only fair that you define what you are meaning. This is especially to NoStacheOhio who said "because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it," but it's also to anyone who would like to answer. I am pretty sure I disagree with your statement, but it's hard to disagree when you haven't put forth anything defining what you mean by it. Note, if you have and I have missed it, my apologies, but I have been keeping up with this thread and can't recall seeing anything other than ban at least AR-15's...maybe....? This is part of the frustration with gun control people because if you can't even define the restrictions you want to implement how can they be taken seriously (and even if they can be defined, they don't ever seem to be in conversation).
2. I can't pin this down to any one post in particular, but there seems to be a general feeling on here from people opposing gun rights and from others I see in media. This feeling is that I have a right to not be afraid. Sometimes it's a little more tangible than that of I have a right to not get hurt. I dunno, I guess this is just foreign to me. I hear things like you can have your gun rights until they conflict with my rights to this or that which, again, tend to go back to not being afraid or not getting hurt. To me, again, this is just a very foreign thing. The fear thing especially seems odd and to be honest a little silly. Having a right to not be afraid...even writing it seems weird. I get it on one level. I don't want my kids to be afraid or live in fear. I wouldn't be too excited about my kids getting nervous because of active shooter drills. However, I wouldn't say that a "right" is being violated. People live in fear over the craziest things. I am no exception. I am afraid of ridiculous things that are very unlikely to happen many times. I don't really blame someone for my fear, though. I can choose to live in fear, or I can choose to not. If I'm living in the middle of a war zone, some healthy caution would be merited. However, at least the way I see it, these fears are not merited statistically compared to other risks, and I think it's silly to live in fear of these other even riskier things (auto accidents even if I drive a lot or whatever). If we live in that fear, it seems it's kind of on us, and I don't understand how the right to own a gun competes with the "right" to not be afraid. That doesn't seem to be a right. The other right mentioned of a right to not get hurt also seems a bit nebulous. I guess I've always just lived with the understanding that rights prevent limitations - they mean you are able to do something or you cannot be restricted from doing something. In some cases it's super clear - I can say the government stinks and they can't throw me in jail. In other cases, it's more, I guess, philosophical like, let's say discrimination. However, that can still be linked to ensuring someone is able to do something - find a job, find housing, etc. It makes sense as a right. This right to not have bad things happen to me as a theoretical or philosophical right...it just seems so, I don't know, all encompassing that I don't know how you would ever stop if you really believed that as a founding principle. I get it, I believe that there can be certain restrictions on things - we all drive on one side of the road to prevent accidents, so on and so forth. This is not to say there can't be gun control if you view things as I do. I can see the benefits of certain restrictions, compromise, and the like. However, I guess I just can't make that leap that I have this unalienable right to not have something bad happen to me. I don't have a right to not ever be punched in the face. Now, if someone does it, I would like for them to get punished for it, but to say that I truly have the right to not be punched in the face would mean that I would have to support some insane restrictions that would prevent anyone from being able to punch me in the face. It just doesn't seem like a right to me. Not that locking someone up for assault to keep them from assaulting someone else is a bad thing (the analogy breaks down here, but hopefully you get my drift). It's not a bad thing to have restrictions on things necessarily. I just don't understand how it's some right in the same line as a right to have free speech or to have the ability to defend yourself - and yes, defend yourself with a weapon. I realize this whole part is a little theoretical, but it seems at least somewhat important to me. Not sure if this part will/even should get any responses, but if someone believes these things are rights and has thoughts on it, please respond.