Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[dimreepr]

I feel no shame for the actions of others.

 

 

Even, if your rhetoric inspires or is directly responsible for the action of others?

 

If you really think that then I would suggest the relevant authorities remove your weaponry with great caution.

 

 

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?

 

 

 

To own a car you not only need a license but you need to prove you’re competent to use it and its primary purpose is transport, not a weapon; in some states you need a license, to own a gun but none require you prove your competence to use it and its primary purpose is a weapon.

 

Now, that’s what I call irony but if you need help to understand why, please, borrow my irony meter... no... wait... you’ve broken it with this:

 

 

The right to FIGHT for their rights is the reason why the right to bear arms is inalienable.

 

 

 

And, of course.

 

 

My rights are as essential to me as my chromosomes. Can my chromosomes be legislated away?

 

[waitforufo]

Actually your rights come from God. That way no temporary secular authority can take them away.

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.

 

Thi

Let freedom ring baby!

 

 

If you really think that then I would suggest the relevant authorities remove your weaponry with great caution.

 

If they are coming to get my guns, that is good advice.

[dimreepr]

If they are coming to get my guns, that is good advice.

 

 

No doubt the bunker is well dug in?

[zapatos]

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?

Probably because your argument thus far has been lacking.

Easy enough to rectify though. Start by telling me where you think those rights come from and offer some sort of evidence to support your assertion.

[overtone]

Those of us in this thread who would like to see various forms of gun control have been repeatedly told that we don't understand the Second Amendment or distort its meaning to satisfy or opinions.

Yes - in various ways. Look at the posts that confuse standing government military or police forces with "militia", or government training and restriction with "regulated".

 

I believe pro gun advocates distort the meaning and intentions behind the Second Amendment much as anyone else.

Of course. As has been posted repeatedly here, this is a "both sides" problem.

 

The founders spoke of "arms" not specifically guns.

In particular, arms suitable for a militia as was familiar to them, that a private citizen can keep and bear. As has been noted repeatedly, that language allows handgun restrictions much more easily than so-called "assault rifle" bans, and is easily recognized as allowing the restriction of military gear that no ordinary person could keep and bear.

 

Armed citizens are not sufficient vs nuclear submarines, jet fighters, and tanks. Armed citizens grabbing the rifle off the mantel above the fireplace doesn't get it done in the modern world.

There are a lot of people who could have used a handy rifle though, even in the modern world, and didn't have one - modern tyranny is not imposed by armies, as a rule, but by paramilitary terrorism and thuggery. Against the KKK, the Salvadoran death squads, the Tonton Macoutes - as against the local Red raiding parties on the early US frontier - an armed citizenry would have been a salvation.

 

They've even held their own against some impressive State military, in places like Afghanistan.

 

 

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?

It establishes the ones it specifies legally - an important matter. The liberal mindset is what wrote the Bill of Rights, liberal philosophy and ideology is where all your notions of "natural rights" merely "recognized" by the Constitution came from. You are espousing the classic liberal point of view. You owe gratitude to those liberals who wrote it into law and protected it from the conservative power of authoritarian government.

 

 

 

 

Easy enough to rectify though. Start by telling me where you think those rights come from and offer some sort of evidence to support your assertion.

Whether any given person can provide an intellectually rigorous support for a natural rights philosophy or not, there is no real question that the Founders thought they were formalizing the legal establishment of rights already in possession of "the people" according to their nature as human beings. Even a glance at the 10th Amendment shows that.

Edited July 25, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

 

 

If they are coming to get my guns, that is good advice.

They have tanks and RPGs.

Frankly, they probably only need tear gas to beat you into submission.

How much caution do they need?

 

It's an interesting point about the gun lobby that they talk of defending themselves against the government.

It seems to me that such a stance indicates just how far from reality they are.

Edited July 26, 2015 by John Cuthber

[Ten oz]

1 - Look at the posts that confuse standing government military or police forces with "militia", or government training and restriction with "regulated".

 

2- In particular, arms suitable for a militia as was familiar to them, that a private citizen can keep and bear. As has been noted repeatedly, that language allows handgun restrictions much more easily than so-called "assault rifle" bans, and is easily recognized as allowing the restriction of military gear that no ordinary person could keep and bear.

 

3 - There are a lot of people who could have used a handy rifle though, even in the modern world, and didn't have one - modern tyranny is not imposed by armies, as a rule, but by paramilitary terrorism and thuggery. Against the KKK, the Salvadoran death squads, the Tonton Macoutes - as against the local Red raiding parties on the early US frontier - an armed citizenry would have been a salvation.

 

 

 

1 - No confusion at all. The founders idea was that there would be no standing Federal Army or governmentally controlled armed forces and that the citizens themselves would form militias as required to defend and protect. Having locally controlled police forces, State controlled national guards, and standing federal military forces voids that aspect of the original vision.

 

2 - The 2nd Amendment does not define "arms" as those things only familiar to the authors. The 2nd Amendment is not limiting in anyway. The founders repeatedly spoke about the right to use arms to fight armies akin to the way they had fought England. They used all arms available to them at the time.All the arms needed to win. The idea was to ensure citizens would be able to do as they had done.To that end citizens would use all weapons of war as they had. So to be honest to the 2nd Amandment would be to advocate for individuals having the right to be armed at a leave equal to the government. That is what the founding fathers had envisioned and that would include a lot more than guns. That would also be lunacy which is why everyone chooses to accept that the 2nd Amendment is limiting. That the authors spoke of arms but exclusively meant guns because that was the popular weapon of the day. To acknowledge the amendments full meaning would require it to be amendment and there is no political will for that. No political will to define "Arms" or define gun.

 

3 - I said in the post you qouted "We can argue that individuals having guns is valuable against an oppressive government, for self protection, as a crime deodorant, and etc ". I acknowledged that there are useful applications worth discussion. My comment was addressing why we have a standing military and police forces today despite the founders clear on the record objections against them.

 

The conditions meant for the 2nd Amendment do not exist and the modern application of it is an evolved one that doesn't follow directly in line with the amendment's original purpose or design. It was meant inform our still forming governments balance of power. The arms being necessary to the security of a free state in part meaning that individuals would be armed and not the government. There are some who attempt to stay true to the original understanding. We generally call them right wing extremist. They form their own militias, are heavily armed, and feel the federal government has no rights over them. By 1788 standards and by the ideas outlined by the founding fathers right wing extremist aren't wrong. However the world isn't static and conditions have changed. Many ideas as outlined either no long exist or are impractical by mordern standards.

[waitforufo]

No doubt the bunker is well dug in?

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.

 

Probably because your argument thus far has been lacking.

Easy enough to rectify though. Start by telling me where you think those rights come from and offer some sort of evidence to support your assertion.

I did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

 

 

In particular, arms suitable for a militia as was familiar to them, that a private citizen can keep and bear. As has been noted repeatedly, that language allows handgun restrictions much more easily than so-called "assault rifle" bans, and is easily recognized as allowing the restriction of military gear that no ordinary person could keep and bear.

What overtone is referring to here is US v. Miller.

 

There are a lot of people who could have used a handy rifle though, even in the modern world, and didn't have one - modern tyranny is not imposed by armies, as a rule, but by paramilitary terrorism and thuggery. Against the KKK, the Salvadoran death squads, the Tonton Macoutes - as against the local Red raiding parties on the early US frontier - an armed citizenry would have been a salvation.

 

They've even held their own against some impressive State military, in places like Afghanistan.

Agreed.

It establishes the ones it specifies legally - an important matter. The liberal mindset is what wrote the Bill of Rights, liberal philosophy and ideology is where all your notions of "natural rights" merely "recognized" by the Constitution came from. You are espousing the classic liberal point of view. You owe gratitude to those liberals who wrote it into law and protected it from the conservative power of authoritarian government.

Agreed. My debt of gratitude is immense. So how did liberals lose their way so badly?

Whether any given person can provide an intellectually rigorous support for a natural rights philosophy or not, there is no real question that the Founders thought they were formalizing the legal establishment of rights already in possession of "the people" according to their nature as human beings. Even a glance at the 10th Amendment shows that.

Thank you!

They have tanks and RPGs.

Frankly, they probably only need tear gas to beat you into submission.

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.

Edited July 26, 2015 by waitforufo

[John Cuthber]

 

 

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.

 

Sounds a bit like this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

[Ten oz]

@ Waitforufo, do you believe the 2nd Amendment is limiting in its definition of arms? Did the authors want the situation we have where the government is so much more heavily armed than individuals? Did the authors of the 2nd Amendment want standing armed government controlled forces?

[waitforufo]

Sounds a bit like this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

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.

@ Waitforufo, do you believe the 2nd Amendment is limiting in its definition of arms? Did the authors want the situation we have where the government is so much more heavily armed than individuals? Did the authors of the 2nd Amendment want standing armed government controlled forces?

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.

[John Cuthber]

In what way exactly?

This

"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. "

[waitforufo]

This

"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. "

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.

 

They have tanks and RPGs.

Frankly, they probably only need tear gas to beat you into submission.

How much caution do they need?

 

It's an interesting point about the gun lobby that they talk of defending themselves against the government.

It seems to me that such a stance indicates just how far from reality they are.

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.

Edited July 26, 2015 by waitforufo

[Ten oz]

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.

This doesn't answer my question. I have clearly stated that the founders wanted people armed. No where have I argued otherwise. I asked if the 2nd Amendment was limiting and if the founders had meant for people to be equally armed to any governmental power?

[waitforufo]

This doesn't answer my question. I have clearly stated that the founders wanted people armed. No where have I argued otherwise. I asked if the 2nd Amendment was limiting and if the founders had meant for people to be equally armed to any governmental power?

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 Cuthber]

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 to I need to point out my love of my life, liberty, and property.

 

It is you who are detached from reality.

I'm amused that you think that " American Liberty" is different from anyone else's. (well I can own a 3 neck flask without a license and if Iwas in Texas...).

You don't seem to realise that I too can speak my mind.

And I too don't expect a problem with the police.

But that's not the point is it?

 

When the pro-gun lobby talk about defending themselves from "The Government" they are obviously talking about some future state in which the government has gone rogue- otherwise there wouldn't be any need to defend themselves would there?

So, anything you said about the current police or army is irrelevant isn't it?

 

 

Fast forward to the dark days where you feel that the government is unduly restricting your legitimate freedom what will you do.

By then, yor neighbours with video cameras on their 'phones may have heard about this

https://longlens.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/philadelphia-freeze-or-problems-photographing-the-police-in-america/

and so they might simply close the curtains.

 

There's already enough government influence on the media to mean that Action 5 news will stay away.

 

So, in the case that's actually relevant, once more-

how much caution do they need?

 

Of course, there's every chance it will never come to that; the controls in place will prevent any such government developing.

OK, fine, but in that case why do people say they want guns to defend themselves from the government?

 

You can't have it both ways.

It makes no sense to claim that the guns are the arms of a well ordered militia which can enforce the will of the people on the government when the government has the whole US military on hand.

[Ten oz]

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.

So you defer to a 1939 court interpretation over what the Authors said about the subject? I don't believe the 2nd amendment defines arms as only being what is common to an average person of a given time nor does it allow for the government to define or limit what individuals can have. Alexander Hamilton himslef made it clear in federalist papers 29 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.aspeven within the context of US vs Miller the definition of arms is basically an evolving one since the type of arms availible to an average militia member is always changing. Also US vs Miller was about the national firearms act. The ruling declared the 2nd amendment was not violated. It was not a direct 2nd amendment challange as where by the ruling redefines the amendment itself. As use of a specific type of firearm grows so would the odds that it would be a weapon an average militia member would have access. So US vs Miller doesn't etch in stone which are individuals have the right to.

The 2nd amendment seek to empower individuals and limit the government.

[waitforufo]

I'm amused that you think that " American Liberty" is different from anyone else's. (well I can own a 3 neck flask without a license and if Iwas in Texas...).

You don't seem to realise that I too can speak my mind.

And I too don't expect a problem with the police.

But that's not the point is it?

 

When the pro-gun lobby talk about defending themselves from "The Government" they are obviously talking about some future state in which the government has gone rogue- otherwise there wouldn't be any need to defend themselves would there?

So, anything you said about the current police or army is irrelevant isn't it?

 

 

Fast forward to the dark days where you feel that the government is unduly restricting your legitimate freedom what will you do.

Again you don't understand. Those dark days will never come if the citizenry is armed. We don't fear them. They fear us.

 

By then, yor neighbours with video cameras on their 'phones may have heard about this

https://longlens.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/philadelphia-freeze-or-problems-photographing-the-police-in-america/

and so they might simply close the curtains.

 

There's already enough government influence on the media to mean that Action 5 news will stay away.

 

So, in the case that's actually relevant, once more-

how much caution do they need?

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.

 

Of course, there's every chance it will never come to that; the controls in place will prevent any such government developing.

OK, fine, but in that case why do people say they want guns to defend themselves from the government?

 

You can't have it both ways.

It makes no sense to claim that the guns are the arms of a well ordered militia which can enforce the will of the people on the government when the government has the whole US military on hand.

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.

So you defer to a 1939 court interpretation over what the Authors said about the subject? I don't believe the 2nd amendment defines arms as only being what is common to an average person of a given time nor does it allow for the government to define or limit what individuals can have. Alexander Hamilton himslef made it clear in federalist papers 29 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.aspeven within the context of US vs Miller the definition of arms is basically an evolving one since the type of arms availible to an average militia member is always changing. Also US vs Miller was about the national firearms act. The ruling declared the 2nd amendment was not violated. It was not a direct 2nd amendment challange as where by the ruling redefines the amendment itself. As use of a specific type of firearm grows so would the odds that it would be a weapon an average militia member would have access. So US vs Miller doesn't etch in stone which are individuals have the right to.

The 2nd amendment seek to empower individuals and limit the government.

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.

[John Cuthber]

 

Those dark days will never come if the citizenry is armed.

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.

 

You don't understand that you are already not armed, because your toys wouldn't help.

I suspect that something like that has been said shortly before every time the people were fired on by their own army.

[zapatos]

I did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

I read the article. Please correct me if I am wrong but based on this article you seem to be claiming that natural rights came from God.

 

If you can now address my second request that you did not yet address; please provide some evidence that God bestowed those rights on us.

You don't understand that you are already not armed, because your toys wouldn't help.

I suspect that something like that has been said shortly before every time the people were fired on by their own army.

I thought that we already covered this in the posts in the 140s.

Can you tell me why you don't think the 'toys' were effective in Afghanistan, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Ireland, and France?

[John Cuthber]

I read the article. Please correct me if I am wrong but based on this article you seem to be claiming that natural rights came from God.

 

If you can now address my second request that you did not yet address; please provide some evidence that God bestowed those rights on us.

I thought that we already covered this in the posts in the 140s.

Can you tell me why you don't think the 'toys' were effective in Afghanistan, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Ireland, and France?

In many cases the answer is "thousands of miles of supply lines". In the case of Ireland, the UK still essentially occupies 6 counties and there's an uneasy peace there of sorts. Give it a while and the occupation will be seen to have succeeded. In France the government also only had "toys".

[overtone]

 

 

You don't understand that you are already not armed, because your toys wouldn't help.

I suspect that something like that has been said shortly before every time the people were fired on by their own army.

This is picking on a weak formulation of the argument. The army isn't the threat.

In real life, tyranny arrives - especially in the early stages - via local terrorism, at most paramilitary rather than military. The KKK, the Tontons Macoutes, the Salvadoran death squads, the Brown Shirts, the Indonesian Jagals, all operated in fairly small and lightly armed secretive groups that required a disarmed population of targets. Military occupation is clumsy, expensive, and all but impossible to maintain for years. It also tends to create a vulnerability to rebellion in that military. So the army is not the tool of choice, or even reliably effective without a softened up citizenry.

From Wiki review of "Jagal", the documentary:

 

When Suharto overthrew Sukarno, the President of Indonesia, following the failed coup of the 30 September Movement in 1965, the gangsters Anwar Congo and Adi Zulkadry in Medan (North Sumatra) were promoted from selling black market movie theatre tickets to leading the most powerful death squad in North Sumatra. They also extorted money from ethnic Chinese as the price for keeping their lives.

Tanks, airplanes, missiles, artillery even, were not involved.

The toys would have really helped. And notice that the perps in the US - the KKK crowd - are the faction most firmly opposed to the slightest move toward disarmament. They know how that stuff works, within living memory, and they never want it to work on them.

[John Cuthber]

So, what you are saying is that to do something different, somewhere else would need something different.

[Prometheus]

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?

 

A peculiar sentiment. If i take away your chromosomes, you die. If i take away your guns, you might die a little inside given your attachement to them, but you will not literally die. So your rights are not essential to you in the same way as your chromosomes.

 

 

Nature, god, I'm good with either...

 

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.

 

A finality that your opinion of rights is the definitive version. Myself, as a mere Brit, cannot understand. Yes, the Old Testament god is a most fitting analogy.

 

What of Hobbes, Locke and Paine? They were all born and raised in England.

 

It would be helpful to know where you actually believe natural rights come from so that we might move the debate on a little. If you believe rights literally come from god we can discuss that. If you believe they are somehow implicit in the laws of physics then we can discuss that (which is what i imagine when you say natural rights, but deny they come from a god, or from man), with a small group of your friends, have decided what rights man has - and if anyone disagrees they are simply wrong.

 

To make it easy, do you believe natural rights come from:

 

God (literally).

 

Laws of physics.

 

Mankind.

 

Other (please explain).

 

... you live in England so you have no idea of American Liberty.

 

 

Maybe your mind just can't comprehend liberty. Why don't you stop trying to fit me neatly into your own mental confines.

 

Yes, we could all do that.

[overtone]

So, what you are saying is that to do something different, somewhere else would need something different.

Illustrating my thesis: irrationality and bogus mistaking and bad faith arguments dominate both sides of the gun control debate. This forestalls otherwise readily available progress toward sane societal management of firearms in the US.

 

The point in post 247 is that the value of an armed citizenry in discouraging, even preventing, government tyranny, is not based in some wingnut fantasy of taking on the US army and winning. It's based on the KKK never getting started in its lynch habit if its targets had had guns handy. And that is a reasonable, evidence backed, viewpoint. It should be treated as such.

 

 

 

 

It would be helpful to know where you actually believe natural rights come from so that we might move the debate on a little

You wouldn't move the debate a bit. It doesn't matter in the slightest where some individual thinks a natural right to bear arms "comes from". Only that we have it. And in this case not even that - it's written into the Constitution.

 

Edited July 27, 2015 by overtone