Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Illinois: Phelps files to override Quinn's amendatory veto of concealed carry bill. [View all]friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)36. "People here...insist the right to guns trumps every other right." No, they don't.
You'd have to twist someone's post out of all recognition to make that claim, and
bluntly- I don't think you can.
I agree that you have the right to feel with every fiber of your being that someone else carrying a gun
violates your civil rights- but you can't demonstrate such a violation, and unless and until you do
your claim can be ignored. If someone has a gun legally, and does nothing to you with it, you've nothing to
complain about. In fact, what you've been saying here is in fact an example of Robert Bork's theory
of 'moral harm':
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=335504#335606
43. Strange seeing Robert Bork's theory of moral harm espoused at DU
For those unfamiliar with it, Dan Baum's recent article in Harper's related this to the objection to open carry:
".....My friends who are appalled by the thought of widespread concealed weapons aren't impressed by this argument, or by the research demonstrating no ill effects of the shall-issue revolution. "I don't care," said one. "I don't feel safe knowing that people are walking around with guns. What about my right to feel safe? Doesn't that count for anything?"
Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971, in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal that knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.
Its as bad an argument now as it was then. We may not like it that other people are doing things we revilesmoking pot, enjoying pornography, making gay love, or carrying a gunbut if we arent adversely affected by it, the Constitution and common decency argue for leaving it alone. My friend may feel less safe because people are wearing concealed guns, but the data suggest she isn't less safe..."
Which brings up (a) question for you:
1. What harm is had by someone carrying a handgun near you? "It bothers me" hardly qualifies- I'm bothered by overcooked vegetables, but I don't get into a snit if someone else eats them near me.
For those unfamiliar with it, Dan Baum's recent article in Harper's related this to the objection to open carry:
".....My friends who are appalled by the thought of widespread concealed weapons aren't impressed by this argument, or by the research demonstrating no ill effects of the shall-issue revolution. "I don't care," said one. "I don't feel safe knowing that people are walking around with guns. What about my right to feel safe? Doesn't that count for anything?"
Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971, in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal that knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.
Its as bad an argument now as it was then. We may not like it that other people are doing things we revilesmoking pot, enjoying pornography, making gay love, or carrying a gunbut if we arent adversely affected by it, the Constitution and common decency argue for leaving it alone. My friend may feel less safe because people are wearing concealed guns, but the data suggest she isn't less safe..."
Which brings up (a) question for you:
1. What harm is had by someone carrying a handgun near you? "It bothers me" hardly qualifies- I'm bothered by overcooked vegetables, but I don't get into a snit if someone else eats them near me.
I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
72 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Illinois: Phelps files to override Quinn's amendatory veto of concealed carry bill. [View all]
ExCop-LawStudent
Jul 2013
OP
Nice to see a Democrat taking the lead here on behalf of IL citizens' rights. n/t
appal_jack
Jul 2013
#2
"People here...insist the right to guns trumps every other right." No, they don't.
friendly_iconoclast
Jul 2013
#36
Until some *human* uses one to harm another, guns just sit there doing nothing.
friendly_iconoclast
Jul 2013
#50
Looks like *someone* is conflating 'number' with 'rate'- and throwing in an associational fallacy...
friendly_iconoclast
Jul 2013
#65
"There are over 506 documented cases of CCW holders killing someone" Which proves they're...
friendly_iconoclast
Jul 2013
#53