Originally Posted by roachboy

well gee, dk, you'd think that local control would be the obvious way out for you.
multiple types of regulation.

for example, if you were to encounter a situation on the street in a city that would incline you to whip out your artillery and start shooting, the limits of your "individual responsibility" would immediately be breached. every bullet that did not hit its target would be an element that potentially causes harm to others, who are enmeshed in very different situations, who exercise their agency within those situations. you have no control over stray bullets. but you would in a sense be responsible for them. but you could not exercise that responsibility and use your weapon.

another way: if you were to draw your artillery in an urban situation, the effect of your action would be to increase the number of bullets that would whizz through the air. the purview of your "responsibility" would be immediately breached. your "individual right" to bear arms does not extend to an equivalent "right" to potentially maim or kill another person who would come into contact with the consequences of your exercise of your "individual rights" because they were, say, making dinner in the wrong spot at the wrong moment, or was walking home for a bodega at the wrong moment. in a densely populated space, your "individual rights" can and in some cases should be abrogated in the interest of the surrounding population.

notice that this entire argument hinges on the differences that distinguish the human geography of a dense urban environment from that of, say, a small town with lots of open area and a culture of hunting (for example).

so far as i can see, you have **no** coherent argument against different regulatory regimes.
your present line of the "tyranny of the majority" applies to your own position just as easily--your position, transposed into an urban environment, is *equivalent* to a claim that it is an extension of this chain: unlimited gun ownership-->right to use the gun in self-defense-->the "right" to generate "collateral damage"....so in this kind of situation, your position is the one that has as a direct consequence (in certain contexts) the trampling the rights of others (unless you think not getting shot is not a right...)

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Weird...I don't feel oppressed.