Uh...no. You don't "just" give up your rights to a weapon. You've also hurt or killed somebody. That's really the big point here. It hurts other people.
We have food safety regulations and inspections to try to prevent the stupidity of a cook from causing food-borne illness in customers. There are legitimate public health issues out there. People causing themselves harm is unfortunate but I agree that people have a considerable right to be stupid. It's their lives. I want to be protected from the stupidity of others harming me, though, to the extent feasible. That too is a balance, but I really don't want my neighbor storing chemical weapons in his garage. His stupidity could take out a whole neighborhood.
You're choosing to live in a society if you live here. Societies have rules to better function. Don't like the very principle of govt. of, by, and for the people? Somalia welcomes you!
Well, since you talk about guns specifically once again, and rules to protect people. The 2nd amendment is there to protect us.. From each other in the case of crime. From foreign threats in the case of an invasion. And from our on government, should checks and balances fail and the government becomes tyrannical.
Saying that, I believe a foreign invasion requiring armed militia response or the need for citizen uprising to be a very improbable scenario. But not impossible. Nothing is impossible. Our forefathers were quoted in books written by them, in their diaries, etc. saying just thato
So in essence the current proposed legislations are trying to restrict a law giving us the right of protection not only from criminals and foreign powers, but also from THEM. All for a, while very sad, statistically insignifigant number of tragedies and people dead.
I understand the emotional reaction, I really do. But emotion rarely is beneficial to the use of logic.
That said, let's not derail this thread.
Rules to protect others are just that. You are cooking food for someone else? Rules are good. But some of our regulations would be like the government requiring you to follow those rules when preparing your own food in your own home. It's a good idea, but if you want food poisoning or something do whatever you want. That's all on you.
And yes if I hurt or kill someone else I have not only given up my rights. But what do you suggest? Arresting people and charging them with crimes they haven't even attempted? We need proof, what if they haven't hinted to it or there IS no proof?
"We need to regulate guns" Ok, so guns are harder to get. The people wanting to hurt others will just use something else. We will see a rise in stabbings for instance. If you have knowledge of anatomy and knives, you should know a knife attack can be pretty serious. Close up it is just as deadly as a gun.
So we have to regulate that. But people wanting to harm others will just find a NEW way to do it.
My point is, harming someone is already against the law. People that do it either expect jail time or don't feel responsible for their own actions. Overregulation does nothing but make matters worse.
Most crime happens at night. If the government issued a manditory curfew to cut down on crime, would you support it?