HOME | DD

Description
What I learned in philosophy

According to John Locke's view of the State of Nature, when we (humans) exist in the State of Nature, we all have two fundamental rights: the right to protect our property, and the right to punish those who try to take it away. Or, as my philosophy professor put it "Say I have a bunch of acorns. The State of Nature says I can keep you from stealing my acorns. So don't take my acorns."

Government and society is not the State of Nature, in fact, it's what we get when we leave the State of Nature. By agreeing to enter society, we give up those two rights to the government (or specifically, the police) because that's one of the main reasons we chose to start a government and develop society, so we don't have to deal with people trying to steal our acorns. We let someone else take care of it.

Now, given that the whole US Constitution was basically John Locke's idea, don't you think that his view on the rights we give to the government is pretty valid? So what's with all this recent gun nonsense?

Yes, the Second Amendment is there for a reason… an outdated reason. "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." Militia, meaning literally: 1. "An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers." 2. "A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency." 3. "The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service." So, through a liberal interpretation of the text, you could say that militia is something akin to the Army Reserves, but in a conservative interpretation, a militia is a group of citizens who are there to defend Lexington and Concord from the British until the actual Continental Army gets there.

Again I ask: what is with all this recent gun nonsense?

Just yesterday, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed into law a bill allowing guns in churches, "as part of a security force." (huffingtonpost.com)

On 28 June, 2010, Christ Cox, NRA lobbyist said "This decision makes absolutely clear that the Second Amendment protects the God-given right of self-defense for all law-abiding Americans…" of the Supreme Court decision that Chicago's ban on handguns was unconstitutional. (cnn.com)

Though the first point bothers and confuses me a bit, it is the second point that I wish to address, "God-given right of self-defense" in specific. I am in no way against self-defense; I have a black belt in a defensive style of karate, so I'm obviously not against it. However, I am against this idea of a "God-given right" especially since, by leaving the State of Nature, we effectively give up that right… to the governemnt. Why should we be allowed to claim a right that we gave away? Yes, I understand that it is in the Constitution, but that applies to a militia, which—by definition—is a group, not an individual. If those who want to own guns join the police or the military, I would have no problem that they have access to firearms in their homes, because you see, those people are trained and must log a certain number of hours before they are certified to use those weapons.

According to John Locke's idea of the State of Nature and why we leave it, there really is no reason for any private citizen to need guns for self-defense, especially since we created the police for that very reason. And since Locke's Second Treatise on Government is basically the ground work for the US Constitution (I'm serious, look it up), I think Locke has a very good point.

As you've probably realized by now, I don't like guns; there are a lot of people I wouldn't trust with a butter knife, much less a gun, and frankly, my sense of personal safety is infringed upon when I learn that someone I know has a gun in their home. I know I'm mixing philosophies here, but Utility is based on what is best for the majority, so tell me: is the number of people who feel safe owning a gun, greater than the number of people who feel threatened by the former group?

Then again, I guess this new gun legislation might be good. Maybe after gun deaths skyrocket, the population of the US will be down to a more manageable size and we'll stop overburdening the environment. They say loosening of gun regulations, I say population control.

Description
What I learned in philosophy

According to John Locke's view of the State of Nature, when we (humans) exist in the State of Nature, we all have two fundamental rights: the right to protect our property, and the right to punish those who try to take it away. Or, as my philosophy professor put it "Say I have a bunch of acorns. The State of Nature says I can keep you from stealing my acorns. So don't take my acorns."

Government and society is not the State of Nature, in fact, it's what we get when we leave the State of Nature. By agreeing to enter society, we give up those two rights to the government (or specifically, the police) because that's one of the main reasons we chose to start a government and develop society, so we don't have to deal with people trying to steal our acorns. We let someone else take care of it.

Now, given that the whole US Constitution was basically John Locke's idea, don't you think that his view on the rights we give to the government is pretty valid? So what's with all this recent gun nonsense?

Yes, the Second Amendment is there for a reason… an outdated reason. "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." Militia, meaning literally: 1. "An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers." 2. "A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency." 3. "The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service." So, through a liberal interpretation of the text, you could say that militia is something akin to the Army Reserves, but in a conservative interpretation, a militia is a group of citizens who are there to defend Lexington and Concord from the British until the actual Continental Army gets there.

Again I ask: what is with all this recent gun nonsense?

Just yesterday, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed into law a bill allowing guns in churches, "as part of a security force." (huffingtonpost.com)

On 28 June, 2010, Christ Cox, NRA lobbyist said "This decision makes absolutely clear that the Second Amendment protects the God-given right of self-defense for all law-abiding Americans…" of the Supreme Court decision that Chicago's ban on handguns was unconstitutional. (cnn.com)

Though the first point bothers and confuses me a bit, it is the second point that I wish to address, "God-given right of self-defense" in specific. I am in no way against self-defense; I have a black belt in a defensive style of karate, so I'm obviously not against it. However, I am against this idea of a "God-given right" especially since, by leaving the State of Nature, we effectively give up that right… to the governemnt. Why should we be allowed to claim a right that we gave away? Yes, I understand that it is in the Constitution, but that applies to a militia, which—by definition—is a group, not an individual. If those who want to own guns join the police or the military, I would have no problem that they have access to firearms in their homes, because you see, those people are trained and must log a certain number of hours before they are certified to use those weapons.

According to John Locke's idea of the State of Nature and why we leave it, there really is no reason for any private citizen to need guns for self-defense, especially since we created the police for that very reason. And since Locke's Second Treatise on Government is basically the ground work for the US Constitution (I'm serious, look it up), I think Locke has a very good point.

As you've probably realized by now, I don't like guns; there are a lot of people I wouldn't trust with a butter knife, much less a gun, and frankly, my sense of personal safety is infringed upon when I learn that someone I know has a gun in their home. I know I'm mixing philosophies here, but Utility is based on what is best for the majority, so tell me: is the number of people who feel safe owning a gun, greater than the number of people who feel threatened by the former group?

Then again, I guess this new gun legislation might be good. Maybe after gun deaths skyrocket, the population of the US will be down to a more manageable size and we'll stop overburdening the environment. They say loosening of gun regulations, I say population control.