And historically they government would take away firearms from those they deemed to be "threats to society" in an effort to disarm the populace.

self defence is a part of our social construct, and part of what it means to be free. and I get your point about disarming the populace, but the agruemnet I am making is that criminals are not of a threat to the goverment, but rather to the average citizen. Thus I have three proposals to this degree. The first; Though it is a freedom to defend yourself, it is also a freedom to not get shot. Thus I would propose taking guns away from those who have proven that they cannot follow the social construct our founding fathers design to protect the freedom of our citizenry while allowing those who are reposible to own fire arms. 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. The third Propsal is another attempt to lower the number of homicides. There are, as I am sure you know, three degrees of murder, th first being premeditated, and no gun long shall prevent this, other than the total removal of guns, which would be ridiculous. the scond degree on the other hand is the heat of the momemnt, the fire of hatred acted rashly upon before it dies down into the embers of reason. This we can stop by implimenting a waiting period upon the pruchase of a firearm, so that one may not be bought with an imidiate and terrible purpose.

Wasn't the Self Defense thing around before the Social Contract stuff?

Back when the British were still Colonizing the US, there were huge swathes of land that was just plain impossible to manage with their army

and therefore, just let the Colonists bring Firearms to defend themselves, not that it mattered whether or not the British approved or not due to the fact that the colonists would have gotten guns at some point anyway

the social contract is but what humanity, as a group, creates to protect the freedom of all, like ethics

So those who the government would deem a threat to society because they won't adhere to the governments social contract automatically forfeit there right to self defense?

not the goverments social contract, the people's social constract- like we can agree murdering people is bad-I hope

Would I not a have a choice as to whether our not I want to be apart of said social contract?

Murdering people is bad but it is a lot harder to murder people when everyone has guns to protect themselves with.

said social contact is not goverment ordained, but often goverment enforced, like murder and drugs are bad, also I would argue everyone having a gun would make it easier, also, did you read my propsals?

I read them and they all come to the same conclusion the taking of firearms from individuals who the government (or in your case some make believe societal contract) deems unfit to protect themselves by any means necessary.

I am not against punishing people for crimes involving a victim but I believe once you have served your sentence your God given rights should be fully restored.

yup, make belive, made by Jean-Jaques Rousseau (newhartfordschools.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=2657&dataid=706&FileName=Rousseau_Social_Contract.pdf) its a good read too, nice and quick. and I get your point of once a sentence is doe it's done, so why not have a post prison parole system that allows a man to get a gun if he truely has reformed?

also not those deemed unfit to protect themselves, but rather those deemed likely to commit a crime

I’m not a fan of the government choosing whether or not I will commit a crime.

It’s a slippery slope

Once they have the power to do that then there is nothing really stopping them from making it worse

We’ve already seen that with red flag laws

The problem with a parole system after they are released from prison is that the government still controls who can and can't own a firearm to protect themselves with.

@Phoenix 3-1 it's not chooseing whether or not you commit one, but preventing you from having the means to commit second

But what counts as violent. Some people think a hate crime is violent, but at the same time they want hate crimes to be as simple as someone calling another person a slur.

@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.