@Bradyn I would argue if some is convicted of enouch small crime of one major violent crime, their infingement on the freedom of others gives reason to deprive them of the tools to repeat the above action

I do agree violent people shouldn’t own a gun. But where do we draw the line

In the social contract by Jean-Jaques Rousseau he argues that the state should control property rights which sounds a lot like communism to me.

@Phoenix 3-1 wait what?

I’m on mobile. My spelling isn’t the best

Fixed

@Bradyn no, he argues that the perfect state does, which doesn't exist, he is litterally anti comunist before marx even wrestled with these ideas

@Phoenix 3-1 what about my seond proposal The second is since, tragically a majority of homicides are within a marriage or other such amiable relatioship we should deprive those who are known to be abusive their access to the savage tool of their crimes.

"In dealing with its members, the State controls all their goods under the social contract, which serves as the basis for all rights within the State, but it controls them only through the right of first holder which individuals convey to the State...."

Excerpt from the article that you provided me.

Anything is a weapon. Banning guns might help but if someone is dead set on harming or killing their partner then there are easily other means to do that.

I don’t really see that much of a drop occurring.

yeah, this is true, but we shouldn't make it easy for them to do so

Well who’s to say I don’t beat someone with a hammer. Or stab them with a kitchen knife.

That’s what happened in Britain. It got so bad that they have pushed legislation to ban folding knives because everyone was using them in crimes.

It’s just a really slippery slope that I’d rather stay off of.

@Bradyn that can be interprited as the state has the right to enfore the people chosen social contact whill on the property of the citizen

@Phoenix 3-1 in my homeland you can't have a knife over 6 inches. all I am saying is people with violent of criminal histories should not have the means to make thos histories futures as well, and I am sure that we can at least agree on that

So the majority would force it's will on the minority?
Basically two wolves and a sheep picking what is for dinner.

I think once released other than felonies, they should be able to carry.

so democracy "the majority decideing what should happen" or ethics "the majority dicedeing what is right" -uhh whats your point here

And vote

@Kit_DewStein the voting part I agree with, as you cannot commit murder by placing a vote

the first part I disagree with though

People can change

A democracy is one of the worst forms of government, hence my metaphor " Two wolves and a sheep picking what is for dinner"

@Kit_DewStein true, people can become function member of society, but I would stick by my point that they, as part of their punishment for infringing upon the freedoms of others have their right to bear arms revoked, as a precaution to prevent them from doing it again

Exactly that is the point of the prison system to Punish you for your crimes and help reform you so you do not do them again.

what, pray tell, is better than democracy?

A republic

A constitutional one

a rebulic still requires democracy to function, both on the voting in of officails and the choices those officals make as a body

A constitutional republic that holds balanced democratic elections for leaders whose entire job is to conform to said constitution.

a rebulic is a democracy translated to a larger scale while maintaing the power of the individual

@chaz still requires democracy

A republic yes but a constitutional republic that holds democratic elections for representatives whose entire job is to uphold the constitution is fundamentally different than a regular republic.

And if the Majority happens to decide wrong?

@ThiccSpicyGenderRevealParty now this is why we need a phiosophy channel

Have you tried using the Suggestions channel?

they do actually read them

Well I am of to work, talk to you all later.

aight