waitforufo

And if Adam G. or his mom had taken a gun safety course would the outcome at Sandy Hook Elementary been any different? I think not. I'll say it again. If people are allowed to keep guns and ammo in there homes, no amount of background checking, training, registering, or permitting is going to stop crazies from shooting up public places. People move from sane to insane quickly. The only things you need to know about gun safety can be learned in 15 minutes by googling "gun safety." Here you go. http://www.nssf.org/safety/basics/. Even better from the people who know http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx

You folks crack me up with your training classes. What do you think they teach you at those classes. I'll tell you. They teach you how to load your weapon safely. They teach you to always point the gun in a safe direction when you are not intending to shoot. They teach you to never put your finger on the trigger until you are intending to shoot. They teach you how to operate safety mechanisms if your weapon has them. Many don't. They talk about safe storage. Okay that's 15 minutes. Then they teach you how to shoot with accuracy. The continue accuracy training until your accuracy reaches a qualifying level. The goal of this training is to make each shot a deadly shot. These classes are nothing more than a tax. A tax intended to make firearm ownership prohibitive. Just like poll taxes were intended to suppress voting. No difference.

Who says I have not been responsible? I have never broken the law with respect to firearms. I have never had a hunting violation. I'm a model firearms owner. I was taught firearms responsibility by my parents who were taught by their parents and so on. No government needed. By the way, how long do you think it takes a fully competent and sane person, not a danger to themselves or others, to lose their nut? In my life I have seen three people have mental breakdowns where they had to be committed for a short period. Two co-workers and a close friend. The breakdown process for each took no more then two weeks. US v. Heller and US v. McDonald both ruled that the government could not stop people from having guns in their homes and controlling those guns in their homes as they please because they have the right to bear arms. So as long as people have guns, and losing your mind happens quickly, we will have the kind of shootings that happened in the La. theater. Classes and testing won't make a difference. In fact it may only make such persons more deadly.

You obviously have not been paying attention to my posts. I think I have been very clear that racism is bad. In fact is goes against everything I have said about natural human rights. So sorry, you can't bait me into your racist views or racist web sites. I live in Washington state. We already won the three necked flask fight here. Yeah, there were casualties. There always are when people fight for their rights. But after a while the government realizes that having laws on the books that nobody follows is a bad idea. So all I can tell my fellow Americans in Texas is keep up the fight. Human rights are worth it.

Because driving is a privilege, Like hunting is a privilege. You have to take a hunting safety course to get a hunting license as well. Owning guns is a right. But then you don't recognize the difference between rights and privileges so I don't believe you are capable of understanding that answer. By the way I can own a car without having a licence. I just can't drive it on public roads. Now this is an interesting point. I'm sure those in Texas that want to own three necked flasks own them. They like all good US citizens tell the government to f*ck off when it comes to the ownership of three necked flasks, as they should. Doing so is a fight for their rights. Thanks for making my point.

What question have I missed? Perhaps you can recap. Maybe you simply don't like my answers. Remind me. What right are Texans missing? If in fact they are denied any of there rights then yes they are not fully human and they should fight to regain their humanity.

Gee, I'm sorry you missed out on the enlightenment. It was an important part of history and in understanding the human experience. You should find the time to study it. The train wreck of human history that occurs whenever people lose sight of human rights, slavery being just one, proves that natural human rights do in fact exist. To be fully human. You must be in possession of all your human rights and respect the full human rights of others. I'm really surprised and saddened that there are still some that can't accept that. Maybe you should look up the meanings of the words right and privilege. The dictionary can be a remarkable fount of understanding.

For many of you the origin of natural human rights seems to be at the crux of this debate. I personally find that fact that educated people from western civilization even need to question the fact of natural human rights. Natural human rights is at the center of liberalism. It is why we ended slavery, apartheid, why we have concern for Palestinians, and North Koreans and why we are appalled by the Islamic State. Were did natural rights come from. Well first, it's right in the name. Natural rights come from nature. Where did nature come from? For all practical purposes I think it started with the big bag, and then after a time evolution was pretty important. Some find comfort in believing that god or gods played a part in this natural event. They are free to do that if they choose but it is not essential. Can I survive without my natural human rights. Not as a human being no. I am robbed of my humanity when my rights are denied. I'm shocked that anyone, particularly educated people, would argue with that fact. Now just because it is the last post before this one, Let me reply to dimreepr regarding testing my competency to enjoy my natural rights. During Jim Crow, and likely before that, people in several of the United States were denied there natural rights by the means of testing their competency. This was particularly true of voting rights. So we have a history of denying people their rights via testing in the United States. That sort of thing isn't tolerated in the United States anymore.

Again you don't understand. Those dark days will never come if the citizenry is armed. We don't fear them. They fear us. There will always be cowards who don't understand that they lose their humanity when they lose their freedom. Those that won't feel safe until the government tucks them in bed at night. Thankfully those that understand their rights won't simply give them away. Controls like the right to bear arms. The want guns to protect their liberty because without liberty they lose their humanity. The US military will not step on the second amendment tripwire. There would be mutiny. Whether I like it or not the rulings of the Supreme Court define the law and the meaning of the constitution. So yes the types of arms I am allowed to possess is determined by Miller. Yes, that standard evolves based on what a typical soldier would carry. Typical soldiers carry rifles, and side arms.

Thank you for the clarification. The founders wanted the citizenry to be armed as a typical militia member would be armed. They also wanted them to have personal possession of these arms so that they would have familiarity and effectiveness in their use. Finally they wanted the government to know the power was centered in the people, not in government, and not in standing armies. So no, the average militia member would not have cannons or RPGs. But they would have rifles and side arms. US v. Miller was decided on the fact that shotguns with barrels under 18.5 inches would not be the type of arms that a average millitia member would have or need to be efficient in the use of. Here is the second amendment. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. As a human being I have the right to be free. To be free I have to live in a free state. For that free state to exist the people must be armed, familiar with their arms, and effective in their use or if you will, well regulated. Those people are the militia. For that reason their right to bear arms shall not be infringed. If they lose their weapons they lose their freedom.

John, you live in England so you have no idea of American Liberty. I'm not afraid to speak my mind because I have the right to free speech. I have confidence that I have no problem with the police or the military because I'm a good person who follows the law, pays my taxes, and contributes my time. The idea that my right to bear arms is meaningless because the military and the police are better armed is rather stupid. The military and the police have no interest in denying me my natural rights. In fact they swear to defend and uphold them. Read your post again. How much caution do they need? What I'm pointing out is that if they use there tanks, RPGs and tear gas on me or any other american in their home, to deny us our natural liberty, they have become an illegitimate force in the US. They would be fulfilling the fear of our founders about standing armies. They know that. That is why your comment about tanks, RPGs, and tear gas is rather stupid quite frankly. I don't need to defend myself from the government to win. I simply need to force them to arrest me. Why would I put up a fight? How many times do I need to point out my love of my life, liberty, and property. It is you who are detached from reality.

In what way exactly? Me sitting in my home watching The Simpsons on the tube when the tear gas canisters punch through my windows and I have to stumble outside for air to find my house surrounded by tanks and RPG carrying solders. How do you compare that to someone going to the movies to shoot the place up? Really I'm curious. Please explain your logic. Read US v. Miller. The founders wanted the people armed. Yes, they properly feared standing armies due to there propensity to deny the people their liberty. All the more reason to have the people armed.

What bunker? I live in middle class suburbia platted with quarter acre lots. I live in a house with a white picket fence and a puppy. My neighbors all know I have guns because I clean them in my garage with the door open after my hunting, skeet shooting, or gun range trips. I also skin and butcher the deer I kill in my back yard. I live in a cul de sac that throws a street party every year where my neighbors openly speak to me about my firearm and motorcycle hobbies. My next door neighbors are '60 Berkeley hippies who tell me they feel safer with people like me living in their neighborhood. Maybe your mind just can't comprehend liberty. Why don't you stop trying to fit me neatly into your own mental confines. I did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights What overtone is referring to here is US v. Miller. Agreed. Agreed. My debt of gratitude is immense. So how did liberals lose their way so badly? Thank you! That is exactly what I want. I want Action 5 News rolling their cameras as American solders roll tanks supported by RPG carrying infantry, coming down my street to tear gas me out of my home to get my guns. If Action 5 news can't make it I'm sure my neighbors know how to operate their cell phone video recorders. What a great news story it will make. A middle class dude with no criminal record, no history of mental illness, pays his taxes, volunteers his time at local charities including meals on wheels, and homeless shelters where he donates venison, requiring government home invasion for exercising his natural rights. The only message that will send is liberty is over. Liberty might as well go out with a bang. A funny little fantasy that will never happen. You couldn't get anyone in the US military to participate. Not even the police would get involved. The majority of rank and file police officers support civilian gun ownership. Especially by people like me.

Nature, god, I'm good with either. Both say that my rights are part of me, as they are part of all individuals. Taking away anyone's natural rights or human rights will always be wrong and the good will always fight to correct those wrongs regardless of what documents say. Look at or own constitution. Until the 13th amendment some people counted only as three fifths of a person. That idea was wrong from the start. We in the US are still suffering the effects of that wrong. Some on this forum think their rights come from the constitution. Maybe they wouldn't feel that way if they were only three fifths a person. By the way I believe that the use of god in law is simply a rhetorical device to communicate finality. With respect to rights you are exactly correct. Use the term god in our modern world and many people, liberals in particular, have their reason short circuit. Let freedom ring baby! If they are coming to get my guns, that is good advice.

Well if rights come from the US Constitution, it seems to me that billions of people, not living under the US Constitution, that have no rights. I think you are wrong. I think they have the same rights that you and I have. Exactly the same. That piece of paper, the US Constitution, simply recognizes those rights, it does not establish them. That is what makes it such a great document. Why is this such a hard concept, particularly for those with a liberal mindset, to accept? http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/louisiana-gunman-suffered-from-mental-illness-court-documents-show/2015/07/24/798162f0-3220-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html Another great demonstration of gun control and the effectiveness of government.

Perhaps you should do a little research in Spain's renewable energy program. It didn't work out too well for their economy.

I'm sure I would feel horrible if I was ever forced to take a life in defense of human rights. I may not even have the courage. Neither of those things mean that actions do defend my rights would not be justified regardless of my feelings about them. Where does the second say I need to take a class? Should people have to take a class before they are allowed to vote? I do not need surface to air missiles to defend my rights to life, liberty, or property nor does anyone else. I must pay for my own weapons. Doing otherwise would bind the makers of of sad weapons to involuntary servitude. I am bound to respect the life, liberty, and property of others just like they are bound to respect mine. I have no right not to pay taxes. Believe me I pay lots of them. Have you ever noticed that gun free zones are where most mass shootings happen. Sandy Hook Elementary School was a gun free zone. In my youth I carried a gun into a federal building. No one died. I was taking a hunter's safety class at the time. Hunting is a privilege. You are not a hypocrite? Are you for waiting periods or not? If I already own a gun. In your way of thinking, by already owning a gun I have demonstrated that I have no problem with affronting god. So what does god have to do with it? Besides we have a separation of church and state in the United States. Worrying about god is none of the governments business. In response to "My rights are as essential to me as my chromosomes. Can my chromosomes be legislated away?" You two replied My chromosomes come from nature do they not? So do my rights. Why is this idea laughable or ridiculous? Where do your rights come from? Do you have any? Are they granted by a king? Are the decided by your government. If so are the rights of someone in the US different from someone in Chad, East Timor, or the Islamic State? I don't think they are. I have the right to free speech, but I cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. I have the right to own guns, but I don't have the right to fire that gun in a crowded theater. Seems to me we have our laws and rights properly ordered. Edit --- Come to think of it I also brought guns into my high school for wood and metal shop projects. I made a new stock for an old 410 shotgun and I modified an old Turkish Mauser to accept a scope mount for hunting. Lots of boys did this. You didn't even have to ask for permission. Also, almost every pick up truck in the high school parking lot had a gun rack with guns in the rack. This was particularly true during the fall hunting season. No problems at all.

I feel no shame for the actions of others. If someone purposefully runs down a crowd of people with a car should I feel shame because I own a car? No. Does that better answer your question? No, people FIGHT for rights. They FIGHT for their rights because there rights are inalienable part of there being. The right to FIGHT for their rights is the reason why the right to bear arms is inalienable. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? So you are for abortion waiting periods? If I already own guns, what purpose does a waiting period serve? It points out a defect in your culture with respect to rights. In your culture some people have more rights than others. Some are born better. It's understandable that Brits don't get rights. Our culture has similar rights defects in particular with respect to race. Just look at our history to understand the deaths caused when rights are ignored. My rights are as essential to me as my chromosomes. Can my chromosomes be legislated away?

Not a privilege a right.

I don't have much time for this today, but I will take time to respond to this. By "this side of the pond" do you mean that magical place where they have royal families? Royal families where people are born better than the common folk. Born so much better that you pay taxes to keep up their palaces, gardens, and mow their lawns. Then you pay guards for these places to keep out the riff raff. That side of the pond? Who's crazy? Any American that believes that this country was not founded on the principal natural rights must have missed an important civics lesson. So if you missed that lesson Wiki does a pretty good job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights After you are done with that you can read the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

You have no right to rape. Rape restricts liberty. The constitution of the US protects individual liberty. The foundation of the US constitution is based on the concept on natural rights which are inherent to our being. The US constitution simply recognizes these inherent rights. It does not establish them. Rip the second amendment from the US constitution and my right to bear arms will remain intact.

I don't see it as complex. Perhaps it is complex to you because the second amendment can't be construed to meet your opinion. I'm sure it must be frustrating to find that our constitution was written to protect the rights of the people given to the people by nature or nature's god. Rights inherent to our being. I also struggle to understand how it is "rational" to pretend that a plan common English sentence means something other than what is written. Such pretending is the death of "rational discussion" is it not? Perhaps now that we understand that "well regulated" does not mean controlled by government, we can move on to "shall not be infringed." "Shall not" seems absolute to me. Perhaps some of you who favor gun control can explain how any level of "control" does not "infringe", even in the teeniest bit, on my natural inherent right as one of the people to keep and bear arms? Finally, I don't find it irrational to be very protective of my rights. Especially when people like to pretend that they don't even exist. Roll back this right, what right is next, and how far back do you want them rolled?

More on well regulated. http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm Here is text from a book on a well regulated clock. https://books.google.com/books?id=76gAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=a+well+regulated+clock&source=bl&ots=VOohDTjJU6&sig=BnvJsLus9-1YpT1ePbk8IzPCX58&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwADgKahUKEwiAmJWkvu_GAhVJVYgKHdVJDbY#v=onepage&q=a%20well%20regulated%20clock&f=false I don't see anywhere in that book where they say the well regulated clock is controlled by the government.

In the context of the second amendment, "well regulated" simply means "the ability to shoot and hit what you are aiming at." See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regulate. Definition number 3 fits best but all four definitions point to "the ability to shoot and hit what you are aiming at" in the context of the militia. Each member of the militia had to own arms so that they could practice so that their shooting was accurate or if you will "well regulated." One and two below read the same. 1) A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. 2) A militia practiced and effective in the use of arms, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Now who is the militia? I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …" Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

The Supreme Court has ruled. Read Heller. Read McDonald. Case closed.