Skip to main content

View Diary: Guns Are Property, Not Liberty (114 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think maybe -you're- stuck on ownership; (0+ / 0-)

    your comments seem to indicate that "ownership" is the only valid or legitimate property right, and that anything other than "ownership" is not a property right.

    Bailment and legal possession aren't individual and personal ownership[.]
    No, but they are property rights; individual and personal property rights.
    Depending on the level of "keeping" you are assigned, you might not even have the right to touch it.
    Doesn't matter; whatever rights you have in that property, viz., whatever you have a right to do to or with it, is a property right. Whether the owner grants you a full or limited possessory interest in the property, whether by express agreement or agency relationship, it's still a property interest.
    Property rights are involved, but not necessarily individual property rights.
    As opposed to what? What other kind of property rights are there? Public property rights? Collective property rights? An organization, such as a government or corporation, can own (or have a lawful possessory interest in) property, but I'm not sure what other distinction(s) you might be implying.
    I can now see how having access to arms could be seen as a civil right, just as having access to ballots and ballot boxes is a civil right.

    I'm not sure that "having access to" consumer goods can be a civil right in and of itself. Civil rights typically implicate a right to act or forbear without arbitrary restraint or coercion; i.e., doing things, not having things. "Having access to" consumer goods thus means nothing more than being able to participate in commerce if you so choose, which itself is not a civil right. If there is a "right" to "have access to" the commercial market for a particular product, such a "right" would be useless if, hypothetically, the goods or the market you have a "right" to "access" don't exist. (Compelling someone to make and sell particular goods so that you can "have access to" them would amount to involuntary servitude, but that's a whole separate thing and I don't want to go there.)  And in any event, I don't think that "keep and bear" encompasses this concept of "access."  

    "Having access to ballot boxes" seems an inapt analogy, because that "access" is not really the right; voting is the right, "access to ballot boxes" is either incidental to voting or just a fancy roundabout way to say "voting." Voting is a civil right, not a property right; "ballot boxes" are not consumer products, in that "access to ballot boxes" does not mean "access to" a commercial market in ballot boxes (or voting) in which you can buy them.

    Interesting thought, though.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site