imported post
There seems to be a current of opinion that so long as no
actual harm is caused,
no behavior should be regulated. That is not necessarily an illogical view, but I do not happen to share it.
By that logic, it should not be illegal to drive drunk, at any speed whatever, on the highway unless you actually hit something.
I believe that there are activities that are both inherently dangerous to others*
and which offer no benefit to the person acting. I believe that it is legitimate to forbid these activities, even within the context of an otherwise-protected right. Think fire in a crowded theater, that kind of thing, we all know the examples.
Simply exercising one's RKBA is not inherently dangerous to others, and does indeed offer a benefit to the person exercising that right (and to those around that person, I believe). And it is a recognized natural right.
In this case, I think it obvious (and I invite reasoned argument) that making loaded firearms accessible to children is inherently dangerous, and usually** without benefit to anyone else whomsoever. If anyone can argue that the individual who left a loaded firearm at a playground was
not grossly irresponsible, I'd like to hear that argument.
Doug Huffman (16 September 2008 Tuesday 16:44) replies:
He was responsible enough to have been permitted in the first place, that is enough of an infringement.
Whether the permit is an infringement or no, I don't see why behaving in a manner that is clearly
irresponsible and dangerous to the innocent can't be forbidden.
See above. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the significance of that fact.
I doubt WE have enough of the fundamentals of risk calculus to demonstrate significance.
That would depend on who "WE" is. If "WE" includes the legislative and judicial branches of a lawfully-constituted government, I would say that "WE" certainly have the right and duty to make that call.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.
No argument. It should be equally forbidden for the rich, the poor, law enforcement, the military or any citizen or legal resident to behave in a manner that is clearly irresponsible and dangerous to others***.
I question whether the person in question was a "good person" and truly "armed with wits". I am not sure that his grasp of truth is in question.
Tipsy McStagger (16 September 2008 Tuesday 17:00) opines:
the "law" you posted is irrelevant and unconstitutional.
It is irrelevant in that it is a Virginia statute and the events took place in South Carolina. That much is true. I would be surprised if South Carolina did not have a similar statute or case law. I am willing to be convinced that it does not.
As to "unconstitutional" ... according to whom? You? The Constitution itself provides a means by which it may be interpreted (Article III). If you think that the lawfully-constituted government of these United States is illegitimate ... well, best not go there. I will say that I disagree with you if you do think that.
Rights and responsibility are connected. I don't believe that is formally codified in the way that the Second Amendment is, but if you disagree, I'd be interested to hear why.
Sorry to run on; I'm in a rant-y frame of mind. No offense to anyone is intended, and I apologize if such was given. Nevertheless, I stand by my views.
regards,
GR
---------------------------------------------------------
* I believe that a competent adult does have the right to put themselves at risk if they choose.
** I know of reports of children using firearms to defend their parents and others. I would not consider that actionable, nor would any law of which I am aware.
*** You know what I mean by "dangerous to others". Simply making the normals jittery is
not what I'm talking about. Placing another in imminent danger of serious harm without some good reason is Just Wrong.
