Gun Grabbers, Riddle Me This...

[frigidweirdo]

And back to the same point. Liberty comes with choices. Choices come with different political parties to choose from, different policies to choose from, DEMOCRACY.

No argument here. It's when we no longer are allowed to have choices that I am concern about. It is a mistake to think it cannot happen here.

I will fight for your liberty, whatever it might be. Fight for mine.

I disagree with arms being at the forefront of liberty. I'd say there is more liberty in some European countries than in the US.

They are not. Arms are a LAST resort. European countries may have more liberty, but that's because we have a bunch of authoritarians on both sides, be it Marxist or Jesus Nazis.

Back to the anarchy thing. If you and everyone else has TOTAL freedom, then someone will take away that freedom without your consent.

...which is the end of anarchy. That's what I am saying. Anarchy is a temporary state of existence.

I am not advocating for anarchy. I am advocating for liberty. Limited government power, not an absence of government.

Arms are a last resort. I understand all the arguments here.

However my other argument is that the arms seem to cause people to forget that they need to fight for the other things first, instead of just going straight to their guns.

I'm not saying you're advocating anarchy. I'm using anarchy as an example of why freedoms and security need to be a healthy balance, rather than just be like "we need freedom".

With total freedom you have LESS freedom than with a healthy balance of freedom and security.

 

[boedicca]

During the current Virtue Signaling Preening Fest to promote Mo Bettta Gun Control, the "solution" of mandatory gun seizures (the Australia Plan) is frequently mentioned.

In other news, a 22 year old man was shot to death by police for holding a cellphone in his back yard.

So, Riddle Me This:

If police are so trigger happy that they will shoot to death a man holding a cellphone because he might have a weapon, what is your estimate of the body count when the same police go around trying to seize 300 million guns across the country?

How does this figure compare to the average number of students killed by mass shooters each year?

it is odd that on one hand they hate the police being armed

while on the other hand the want the police to be the only ones armed

and that those armed men are to go around and disarm others at gunpoint

does not seem to be too reasoned out

They aren't exactly known for thinking all logical and stuff....

 

[boedicca]

Can gun owners not be trusted?

Let's see.



Hear the cheering in the background?

So basically you're telling me a law should not be enacted because certain members of society would decide to become criminals because of it?

Huh?

So we should not ban murder because some people are going to murder anyway?

Absurd.

Or, there's another way to interpret that.

Don't deprive me of inalienable rights or I will do what the founders did and revoke consent to be governed by said government....by force if necessary.

You know, it's funny.

There's something called "compartmentalization". What this essentially means is that people put every political issue into a separate box.

It means that people can argue issue one way, and then turn around 180 degrees and use an argument that is totally contrary to the first argument.

So, on the 2A it's "you can't take away our rights".

On the issue of gay marriage it's "take away their rights" (which in turn takes away YOUR right because it then becomes a PRIVILEGE and not a right.

As for there being an inalienable right, the US is the ONLY country in the world to say there's a right to a specific man made object.

Some people would call it a God given right, funny, did guns exist when God decided to make humans?

More fake moral and constitutional equivalency. There is nothing that prevents states from making gay marriage legal. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority over marriages, but it is quite specific about the right to own ARMS.

I see you don't get it. What a shame.

No, actually, it is YOU that doesn't get it. One has to do with legal rights, the other, enshrined in the Constitution, has to do with natural rights.

Marriage is an institution created by either a religious bureaucracy or a government bureaucracy and defined in anyway they wish to define it.

The right to self-defense has long been understood as a natural right, and can only be suppressed by the power of tyranny and a police state.

Ideally, we should dissolve most of the military, and most men should arm themselves to keep this nation free.

If we did this, we could end the Pentagon's wasteful spending.

We could probably cut the military spending in half if we went with the old ways for doing things;

(And resolve this stupid Gun Control debate at the same time)

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense

By Saul Cornell

Saul Cornell is a professor of history at Fordham University. He is one of the nation’s leading authorities on early American constitutional thought, and the author of A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America.

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense


"Rather than close the book on historical argument about the meaning of the Second Amendment, Heller has elevated the importance of history to future gun litigation. “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment,” Justice Scalia wrote in Heller, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.” Justice Scalia’s formulation of the scope of the right to bear arms seemed to suggest that if a regulation had deep historical roots, it would be considered “presumptively lawful.” Understanding the history of firearms regulation seems likely to be crucial to the resolution of future litigation on gun rights and gun control.

It seems unlikely that any significant piece of gun regulation able to survive the political process would ever be struck down on Second Amendment grounds. Handgun bans clearly are out of bounds according to Heller, but hardly any other gun laws have been struck down in the wake of the decision. Over seven hundred cases have been tried, and few regulations have failed to pass constitutional muster. The politics of gun control and gun rights remains divisive. Federal gun regulation seems stalled. There has been considerable activity at the state level, but two opposite trends have emerged. Pro-gun states have expanded gun rights and pro-gun regulation states have passed new, more stringent laws. Although the subject of the Second Amendment and gun regulation continue to inspire vigorous public debate, the actual legal impact of Heller thus far has been quite modest. Although no challenges to recent state gun laws have been mounted, these seem unlikely to prevail. If history is any guide, states will continue to have considerable latitude to legislate in this area as long as laws do not interfere with the right to use a handgun in the home for purposes of lawful self-defense. Courts have not rushed to strike down gun regulations after Heller and there is no indication that things will be much different in the future."

Quite Excellent Post! Well done!

 

[frigidweirdo]

During the current Virtue Signaling Preening Fest to promote Mo Bettta Gun Control, the "solution" of mandatory gun seizures (the Australia Plan) is frequently mentioned.

In other news, a 22 year old man was shot to death by police for holding a cellphone in his back yard.

So, Riddle Me This:

If police are so trigger happy that they will shoot to death a man holding a cellphone because he might have a weapon, what is your estimate of the body count when the same police go around trying to seize 300 million guns across the country?

How does this figure compare to the average number of students killed by mass shooters each year?

it is odd that on one hand they hate the police being armed

while on the other hand the want the police to be the only ones armed

and that those armed men are to go around and disarm others at gunpoint

does not seem to be too reasoned out

They aren't exactly known for thinking all logical and stuff....

Maybe they just want the country to be run by politicians who aren't on the take all the time.

 

[boedicca]

Or, there's another way to interpret that.

Don't deprive me of inalienable rights or I will do what the founders did and revoke consent to be governed by said government....by force if necessary.

You know, it's funny.

There's something called "compartmentalization". What this essentially means is that people put every political issue into a separate box.

It means that people can argue issue one way, and then turn around 180 degrees and use an argument that is totally contrary to the first argument.

So, on the 2A it's "you can't take away our rights".

On the issue of gay marriage it's "take away their rights" (which in turn takes away YOUR right because it then becomes a PRIVILEGE and not a right.

As for there being an inalienable right, the US is the ONLY country in the world to say there's a right to a specific man made object.

Some people would call it a God given right, funny, did guns exist when God decided to make humans?

More fake moral and constitutional equivalency. There is nothing that prevents states from making gay marriage legal. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority over marriages, but it is quite specific about the right to own ARMS.

I see you don't get it. What a shame.

No, actually, it is YOU that doesn't get it. One has to do with legal rights, the other, enshrined in the Constitution, has to do with natural rights.

Marriage is an institution created by either a religious bureaucracy or a government bureaucracy and defined in anyway they wish to define it.

The right to self-defense has long been understood as a natural right, and can only be suppressed by the power of tyranny and a police state.

Ideally, we should dissolve most of the military, and most men should arm themselves to keep this nation free.

If we did this, we could end the Pentagon's wasteful spending.

We could probably cut the military spending in half if we went with the old ways for doing things;

(And resolve this stupid Gun Control debate at the same time)

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense

By Saul Cornell

Saul Cornell is a professor of history at Fordham University. He is one of the nation’s leading authorities on early American constitutional thought, and the author of A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America.

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense


"Rather than close the book on historical argument about the meaning of the Second Amendment, Heller has elevated the importance of history to future gun litigation. “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment,” Justice Scalia wrote in Heller, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.” Justice Scalia’s formulation of the scope of the right to bear arms seemed to suggest that if a regulation had deep historical roots, it would be considered “presumptively lawful.” Understanding the history of firearms regulation seems likely to be crucial to the resolution of future litigation on gun rights and gun control.

It seems unlikely that any significant piece of gun regulation able to survive the political process would ever be struck down on Second Amendment grounds. Handgun bans clearly are out of bounds according to Heller, but hardly any other gun laws have been struck down in the wake of the decision. Over seven hundred cases have been tried, and few regulations have failed to pass constitutional muster. The politics of gun control and gun rights remains divisive. Federal gun regulation seems stalled. There has been considerable activity at the state level, but two opposite trends have emerged. Pro-gun states have expanded gun rights and pro-gun regulation states have passed new, more stringent laws. Although the subject of the Second Amendment and gun regulation continue to inspire vigorous public debate, the actual legal impact of Heller thus far has been quite modest. Although no challenges to recent state gun laws have been mounted, these seem unlikely to prevail. If history is any guide, states will continue to have considerable latitude to legislate in this area as long as laws do not interfere with the right to use a handgun in the home for purposes of lawful self-defense. Courts have not rushed to strike down gun regulations after Heller and there is no indication that things will be much different in the future."

Natural rights huh?

What's natural about a gun? Er... nothing.

Now you're talking about the right to self defense. Why?

The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with self defense. You can defend yourself with a gun. Does that mean the 2A protects TVs as well? You could protect yourself with a TV by throwing it at someone.

Don't start mixing things that are mixed just because it's convenient for you.

Ideally.... well, sorry, but ideal doesn't work when you have rich people wanting to fuck people over in foreign countries. They need cannon fodder that's willing to give up their lives so a rich person can buy another helicopter.

^^^ Yet another example of how getting rid of Western Civ requirements in school has brought us to Idiocracy ^^^

 

[frigidweirdo]

Or, there's another way to interpret that.

Don't deprive me of inalienable rights or I will do what the founders did and revoke consent to be governed by said government....by force if necessary.

You know, it's funny.

There's something called "compartmentalization". What this essentially means is that people put every political issue into a separate box.

It means that people can argue issue one way, and then turn around 180 degrees and use an argument that is totally contrary to the first argument.

So, on the 2A it's "you can't take away our rights".

On the issue of gay marriage it's "take away their rights" (which in turn takes away YOUR right because it then becomes a PRIVILEGE and not a right.

As for there being an inalienable right, the US is the ONLY country in the world to say there's a right to a specific man made object.

Some people would call it a God given right, funny, did guns exist when God decided to make humans?

More fake moral and constitutional equivalency. There is nothing that prevents states from making gay marriage legal. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority over marriages, but it is quite specific about the right to own ARMS.

I see you don't get it. What a shame.

No, actually, it is YOU that doesn't get it. One has to do with legal rights, the other, enshrined in the Constitution, has to do with natural rights.

Marriage is an institution created by either a religious bureaucracy or a government bureaucracy and defined in anyway they wish to define it.

The right to self-defense has long been understood as a natural right, and can only be suppressed by the power of tyranny and a police state.

Ideally, we should dissolve most of the military, and most men should arm themselves to keep this nation free.

If we did this, we could end the Pentagon's wasteful spending.

We could probably cut the military spending in half if we went with the old ways for doing things;

(And resolve this stupid Gun Control debate at the same time)

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense

By Saul Cornell

Saul Cornell is a professor of history at Fordham University. He is one of the nation’s leading authorities on early American constitutional thought, and the author of A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America.

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense


"Rather than close the book on historical argument about the meaning of the Second Amendment, Heller has elevated the importance of history to future gun litigation. “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment,” Justice Scalia wrote in Heller, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.” Justice Scalia’s formulation of the scope of the right to bear arms seemed to suggest that if a regulation had deep historical roots, it would be considered “presumptively lawful.” Understanding the history of firearms regulation seems likely to be crucial to the resolution of future litigation on gun rights and gun control.

It seems unlikely that any significant piece of gun regulation able to survive the political process would ever be struck down on Second Amendment grounds. Handgun bans clearly are out of bounds according to Heller, but hardly any other gun laws have been struck down in the wake of the decision. Over seven hundred cases have been tried, and few regulations have failed to pass constitutional muster. The politics of gun control and gun rights remains divisive. Federal gun regulation seems stalled. There has been considerable activity at the state level, but two opposite trends have emerged. Pro-gun states have expanded gun rights and pro-gun regulation states have passed new, more stringent laws. Although the subject of the Second Amendment and gun regulation continue to inspire vigorous public debate, the actual legal impact of Heller thus far has been quite modest. Although no challenges to recent state gun laws have been mounted, these seem unlikely to prevail. If history is any guide, states will continue to have considerable latitude to legislate in this area as long as laws do not interfere with the right to use a handgun in the home for purposes of lawful self-defense. Courts have not rushed to strike down gun regulations after Heller and there is no indication that things will be much different in the future."

Quite Excellent Post! Well done!

Yeah, great post, advocating using the militia instead of the US armed forces. It didn't work in the 1800s, so it'll work in the 2000s.

Yeah..... now which fat bastards are going to unstick their ass from the sofa and go and do that fighting exactly?

The Koch brothers? I don't think so.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You know, it's funny.

There's something called "compartmentalization". What this essentially means is that people put every political issue into a separate box.

It means that people can argue issue one way, and then turn around 180 degrees and use an argument that is totally contrary to the first argument.

So, on the 2A it's "you can't take away our rights".

On the issue of gay marriage it's "take away their rights" (which in turn takes away YOUR right because it then becomes a PRIVILEGE and not a right.

As for there being an inalienable right, the US is the ONLY country in the world to say there's a right to a specific man made object.

Some people would call it a God given right, funny, did guns exist when God decided to make humans?

More fake moral and constitutional equivalency. There is nothing that prevents states from making gay marriage legal. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority over marriages, but it is quite specific about the right to own ARMS.

I see you don't get it. What a shame.

No, actually, it is YOU that doesn't get it. One has to do with legal rights, the other, enshrined in the Constitution, has to do with natural rights.

Marriage is an institution created by either a religious bureaucracy or a government bureaucracy and defined in anyway they wish to define it.

The right to self-defense has long been understood as a natural right, and can only be suppressed by the power of tyranny and a police state.

Ideally, we should dissolve most of the military, and most men should arm themselves to keep this nation free.

If we did this, we could end the Pentagon's wasteful spending.

We could probably cut the military spending in half if we went with the old ways for doing things;

(And resolve this stupid Gun Control debate at the same time)

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense

By Saul Cornell

Saul Cornell is a professor of history at Fordham University. He is one of the nation’s leading authorities on early American constitutional thought, and the author of A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America.

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense


"Rather than close the book on historical argument about the meaning of the Second Amendment, Heller has elevated the importance of history to future gun litigation. “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment,” Justice Scalia wrote in Heller, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.” Justice Scalia’s formulation of the scope of the right to bear arms seemed to suggest that if a regulation had deep historical roots, it would be considered “presumptively lawful.” Understanding the history of firearms regulation seems likely to be crucial to the resolution of future litigation on gun rights and gun control.

It seems unlikely that any significant piece of gun regulation able to survive the political process would ever be struck down on Second Amendment grounds. Handgun bans clearly are out of bounds according to Heller, but hardly any other gun laws have been struck down in the wake of the decision. Over seven hundred cases have been tried, and few regulations have failed to pass constitutional muster. The politics of gun control and gun rights remains divisive. Federal gun regulation seems stalled. There has been considerable activity at the state level, but two opposite trends have emerged. Pro-gun states have expanded gun rights and pro-gun regulation states have passed new, more stringent laws. Although the subject of the Second Amendment and gun regulation continue to inspire vigorous public debate, the actual legal impact of Heller thus far has been quite modest. Although no challenges to recent state gun laws have been mounted, these seem unlikely to prevail. If history is any guide, states will continue to have considerable latitude to legislate in this area as long as laws do not interfere with the right to use a handgun in the home for purposes of lawful self-defense. Courts have not rushed to strike down gun regulations after Heller and there is no indication that things will be much different in the future."

Natural rights huh?

What's natural about a gun? Er... nothing.

Now you're talking about the right to self defense. Why?

The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with self defense. You can defend yourself with a gun. Does that mean the 2A protects TVs as well? You could protect yourself with a TV by throwing it at someone.

Don't start mixing things that are mixed just because it's convenient for you.

Ideally.... well, sorry, but ideal doesn't work when you have rich people wanting to fuck people over in foreign countries. They need cannon fodder that's willing to give up their lives so a rich person can buy another helicopter.

^^^ Yet another example of how getting rid of Western Civ requirements in school has brought us to Idiocracy ^^^

^^^another example of how personal attacks are used by people without arguments.

 

[boedicca]

More fake moral and constitutional equivalency. There is nothing that prevents states from making gay marriage legal. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority over marriages, but it is quite specific about the right to own ARMS.

I see you don't get it. What a shame.

No, actually, it is YOU that doesn't get it. One has to do with legal rights, the other, enshrined in the Constitution, has to do with natural rights.

Marriage is an institution created by either a religious bureaucracy or a government bureaucracy and defined in anyway they wish to define it.

The right to self-defense has long been understood as a natural right, and can only be suppressed by the power of tyranny and a police state.

Ideally, we should dissolve most of the military, and most men should arm themselves to keep this nation free.

If we did this, we could end the Pentagon's wasteful spending.

We could probably cut the military spending in half if we went with the old ways for doing things;

(And resolve this stupid Gun Control debate at the same time)

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense

By Saul Cornell

Saul Cornell is a professor of history at Fordham University. He is one of the nation’s leading authorities on early American constitutional thought, and the author of A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America.

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense


"Rather than close the book on historical argument about the meaning of the Second Amendment, Heller has elevated the importance of history to future gun litigation. “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment,” Justice Scalia wrote in Heller, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.” Justice Scalia’s formulation of the scope of the right to bear arms seemed to suggest that if a regulation had deep historical roots, it would be considered “presumptively lawful.” Understanding the history of firearms regulation seems likely to be crucial to the resolution of future litigation on gun rights and gun control.

It seems unlikely that any significant piece of gun regulation able to survive the political process would ever be struck down on Second Amendment grounds. Handgun bans clearly are out of bounds according to Heller, but hardly any other gun laws have been struck down in the wake of the decision. Over seven hundred cases have been tried, and few regulations have failed to pass constitutional muster. The politics of gun control and gun rights remains divisive. Federal gun regulation seems stalled. There has been considerable activity at the state level, but two opposite trends have emerged. Pro-gun states have expanded gun rights and pro-gun regulation states have passed new, more stringent laws. Although the subject of the Second Amendment and gun regulation continue to inspire vigorous public debate, the actual legal impact of Heller thus far has been quite modest. Although no challenges to recent state gun laws have been mounted, these seem unlikely to prevail. If history is any guide, states will continue to have considerable latitude to legislate in this area as long as laws do not interfere with the right to use a handgun in the home for purposes of lawful self-defense. Courts have not rushed to strike down gun regulations after Heller and there is no indication that things will be much different in the future."

Natural rights huh?

What's natural about a gun? Er... nothing.

Now you're talking about the right to self defense. Why?

The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with self defense. You can defend yourself with a gun. Does that mean the 2A protects TVs as well? You could protect yourself with a TV by throwing it at someone.

Don't start mixing things that are mixed just because it's convenient for you.

Ideally.... well, sorry, but ideal doesn't work when you have rich people wanting to fuck people over in foreign countries. They need cannon fodder that's willing to give up their lives so a rich person can buy another helicopter.

Humans use their brains, where other species use what they are born with.

Saying something as stupid as "What's natural about a gun?" Is as dumb as saying, "What's natural about clothing?"

Humans use our intelligence to manipulate our environment to serve us. We need to create things to cloth, house, feed and protect us.

THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE IS A NATURAL RIGHT.

Nice try, but owning a gun is not a natural right. It's pretty obvious why.

The Second Amendment IS NOT about self defense. It's about the militia.

It protected the right of individuals to own weapons in case the militia ever needed them.
It also protected the right of individuals to be in the militia, in case the militia ever needed them.

Not personnel self defense.

Now, you can claim a personnel self defense from other parts of the Bill of Rights, just not the 2A.

Please learn something about John Locke and his influence on the Framers.

Two Treatises of Government - Wikipedia

 

[frigidweirdo]

I see you don't get it. What a shame.

No, actually, it is YOU that doesn't get it. One has to do with legal rights, the other, enshrined in the Constitution, has to do with natural rights.

Marriage is an institution created by either a religious bureaucracy or a government bureaucracy and defined in anyway they wish to define it.

The right to self-defense has long been understood as a natural right, and can only be suppressed by the power of tyranny and a police state.

Ideally, we should dissolve most of the military, and most men should arm themselves to keep this nation free.

If we did this, we could end the Pentagon's wasteful spending.

We could probably cut the military spending in half if we went with the old ways for doing things;

(And resolve this stupid Gun Control debate at the same time)

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense

By Saul Cornell

Saul Cornell is a professor of history at Fordham University. He is one of the nation’s leading authorities on early American constitutional thought, and the author of A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America.

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense


"Rather than close the book on historical argument about the meaning of the Second Amendment, Heller has elevated the importance of history to future gun litigation. “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment,” Justice Scalia wrote in Heller, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.” Justice Scalia’s formulation of the scope of the right to bear arms seemed to suggest that if a regulation had deep historical roots, it would be considered “presumptively lawful.” Understanding the history of firearms regulation seems likely to be crucial to the resolution of future litigation on gun rights and gun control.

It seems unlikely that any significant piece of gun regulation able to survive the political process would ever be struck down on Second Amendment grounds. Handgun bans clearly are out of bounds according to Heller, but hardly any other gun laws have been struck down in the wake of the decision. Over seven hundred cases have been tried, and few regulations have failed to pass constitutional muster. The politics of gun control and gun rights remains divisive. Federal gun regulation seems stalled. There has been considerable activity at the state level, but two opposite trends have emerged. Pro-gun states have expanded gun rights and pro-gun regulation states have passed new, more stringent laws. Although the subject of the Second Amendment and gun regulation continue to inspire vigorous public debate, the actual legal impact of Heller thus far has been quite modest. Although no challenges to recent state gun laws have been mounted, these seem unlikely to prevail. If history is any guide, states will continue to have considerable latitude to legislate in this area as long as laws do not interfere with the right to use a handgun in the home for purposes of lawful self-defense. Courts have not rushed to strike down gun regulations after Heller and there is no indication that things will be much different in the future."

Natural rights huh?

What's natural about a gun? Er... nothing.

Now you're talking about the right to self defense. Why?

The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with self defense. You can defend yourself with a gun. Does that mean the 2A protects TVs as well? You could protect yourself with a TV by throwing it at someone.

Don't start mixing things that are mixed just because it's convenient for you.

Ideally.... well, sorry, but ideal doesn't work when you have rich people wanting to fuck people over in foreign countries. They need cannon fodder that's willing to give up their lives so a rich person can buy another helicopter.

Humans use their brains, where other species use what they are born with.

Saying something as stupid as "What's natural about a gun?" Is as dumb as saying, "What's natural about clothing?"

Humans use our intelligence to manipulate our environment to serve us. We need to create things to cloth, house, feed and protect us.

THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE IS A NATURAL RIGHT.

Nice try, but owning a gun is not a natural right. It's pretty obvious why.

The Second Amendment IS NOT about self defense. It's about the militia.

It protected the right of individuals to own weapons in case the militia ever needed them.
It also protected the right of individuals to be in the militia, in case the militia ever needed them.

Not personnel self defense.

Now, you can claim a personnel self defense from other parts of the Bill of Rights, just not the 2A.

Please learn something about John Locke and his influence on the Framers.

Two Treatises of Government - Wikipedia

Do you have a point to make? Do you think I just go around clicking on links for no reason?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And back to the same point. Liberty comes with choices. Choices come with different political parties to choose from, different policies to choose from, DEMOCRACY.

No argument here. It's when we no longer are allowed to have choices that I am concern about. It is a mistake to think it cannot happen here.

I will fight for your liberty, whatever it might be. Fight for mine.

I disagree with arms being at the forefront of liberty. I'd say there is more liberty in some European countries than in the US.

They are not. Arms are a LAST resort. European countries may have more liberty, but that's because we have a bunch of authoritarians on both sides, be it Marxist or Jesus Nazis.

Back to the anarchy thing. If you and everyone else has TOTAL freedom, then someone will take away that freedom without your consent.

...which is the end of anarchy. That's what I am saying. Anarchy is a temporary state of existence.

I am not advocating for anarchy. I am advocating for liberty. Limited government power, not an absence of government.

Arms are a last resort. I understand all the arguments here.

However my other argument is that the arms seem to cause people to forget that they need to fight for the other things first, instead of just going straight to their guns.

I'm not saying you're advocating anarchy. I'm using anarchy as an example of why freedoms and security need to be a healthy balance, rather than just be like "we need freedom".

With total freedom you have LESS freedom than with a healthy balance of freedom and security.

Correct.

Rights are inalienable but not unlimited.

Laws, enacted by elected officials reflecting the will of the people, place appropriate, necessary, proper, and Constitutional restrictions on our rights and protected liberties the people determine to be warranted.

And when the people err, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, those disadvantaged by such measures are at liberty to seek relief by filing suit in Federal court.

This is the means by which the people petition the government for a redress of grievances: first through the political process, and then by the judicial process – not by ‘force of arms’ against a duly, lawfully elected government a minority might incorrectly perceive to have become ‘tyrannical.’

 

[Mac1958]

It sure would be nice if we could somehow get past this part of the issue to the real problem, which is a sick and decaying culture that is spitting out damaged psychopaths at a faster and faster rate.

Wishful thinking, I know. That would take collaboration and effort.
.

 

[Claudette]

During the current Virtue Signaling Preening Fest to promote Mo Bettta Gun Control, the "solution" of mandatory gun seizures (the Australia Plan) is frequently mentioned.

In other news, a 22 year old man was shot to death by police for holding a cellphone in his back yard.

So, Riddle Me This:

If police are so trigger happy that they will shoot to death a man holding a cellphone because he might have a weapon, what is your estimate of the body count when the same police go around trying to seize 300 million guns across the country?

How does this figure compare to the average number of students killed by mass shooters each year?

You are oh so right. American's aren't going to give up their guns and will fight to protect the 2nd Amendment. The FF were smart to put that in our constitution and from the way I read it they were more worried about Govt. than anything else. How right those very smart men were.

All the countries that have disarmed their citizens for "their own safety" are finding out that if someone wants to get a gun there is a worldwide black market out their ready to provide it.

The only people with guns are the criminals and the citizens can't even defend themselves because they have been disarmed for their own "safety."

You can't cure stupid.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

During the current Virtue Signaling Preening Fest to promote Mo Bettta Gun Control, the "solution" of mandatory gun seizures (the Australia Plan) is frequently mentioned.

In other news, a 22 year old man was shot to death by police for holding a cellphone in his back yard.

So, Riddle Me This:

If police are so trigger happy that they will shoot to death a man holding a cellphone because he might have a weapon, what is your estimate of the body count when the same police go around trying to seize 300 million guns across the country?

How does this figure compare to the average number of students killed by mass shooters each year?

You are oh so right. American's aren't going to give up their guns and will fight to protect the 2nd Amendment. The FF were smart to put that in our constitution and from the way I read it they were more worried about Govt. than anything else. How right those very smart men were.

All the countries that have disarmed their citizens for "their own safety" are finding out that if someone wants to get a gun there is a worldwide black market out their ready to provide it.

The only people with guns are the criminals and the citizens can't even defend themselves because they have been disarmed for their own "safety."

You can't cure stupid.

^^And this post is proof stupid can’t be cured.

 

[Claudette]

During the current Virtue Signaling Preening Fest to promote Mo Bettta Gun Control, the "solution" of mandatory gun seizures (the Australia Plan) is frequently mentioned.

In other news, a 22 year old man was shot to death by police for holding a cellphone in his back yard.

So, Riddle Me This:

If police are so trigger happy that they will shoot to death a man holding a cellphone because he might have a weapon, what is your estimate of the body count when the same police go around trying to seize 300 million guns across the country?

How does this figure compare to the average number of students killed by mass shooters each year?

You are oh so right. American's aren't going to give up their guns and will fight to protect the 2nd Amendment. The FF were smart to put that in our constitution and from the way I read it they were more worried about Govt. than anything else. How right those very smart men were.

All the countries that have disarmed their citizens for "their own safety" are finding out that if someone wants to get a gun there is a worldwide black market out their ready to provide it.

The only people with guns are the criminals and the citizens can't even defend themselves because they have been disarmed for their own "safety."

You can't cure stupid.

^^And this post is proof stupid can’t be cured.

LMAO Leave it to an idiot like you. LOL

 

[Crixus]

During the current Virtue Signaling Preening Fest to promote Mo Bettta Gun Control, the "solution" of mandatory gun seizures (the Australia Plan) is frequently mentioned.

In other news, a 22 year old man was shot to death by police for holding a cellphone in his back yard.

So, Riddle Me This:

If police are so trigger happy that they will shoot to death a man holding a cellphone because he might have a weapon, what is your estimate of the body count when the same police go around trying to seize 300 million guns across the country?

How does this figure compare to the average number of students killed by mass shooters each year?

I have a difficult time believing the police would show up for work on the day they were set to go confiscate guns. But day one would go good I’m sure. They would have folks just bring them in. Piles of guns would be “stolen” likely ending up in fast and furious type programs. Crooks would get them to. The home invasions would pick up as they did in australia. Still, I don’t think it would go as nice as the libtards think it would.

 

[boedicca]

During the current Virtue Signaling Preening Fest to promote Mo Bettta Gun Control, the "solution" of mandatory gun seizures (the Australia Plan) is frequently mentioned.

In other news, a 22 year old man was shot to death by police for holding a cellphone in his back yard.

So, Riddle Me This:

If police are so trigger happy that they will shoot to death a man holding a cellphone because he might have a weapon, what is your estimate of the body count when the same police go around trying to seize 300 million guns across the country?

How does this figure compare to the average number of students killed by mass shooters each year?

You are oh so right. American's aren't going to give up their guns and will fight to protect the 2nd Amendment. The FF were smart to put that in our constitution and from the way I read it they were more worried about Govt. than anything else. How right those very smart men were.

All the countries that have disarmed their citizens for "their own safety" are finding out that if someone wants to get a gun there is a worldwide black market out their ready to provide it.

The only people with guns are the criminals and the citizens can't even defend themselves because they have been disarmed for their own "safety."

You can't cure stupid.

Spot on, Friendo.

Here's a great read on Freedom vs. Safety, and how Freedom is the best way to ensure one's Safety. The Gun Grabbers want us to trust other people to keep us safe, even when we have no way to ensure that they are trustworthy.


The other approach is to eschew personal freedom and turn over the task of keeping one safe to someone else. That person or persons will take authority over your safety and give you instruction on what you’re permitted and/or required to do toward that end.

Some folk reading this are already seeing the problem. And that problem is a big one: How do you ensure that the “someone else” given authority over your safety will actually make your safety his, her, or their primary priority? How do you prevent them from dismissing, or even sacrificing, your safety for some other end?

And that’s not even addressing the question of what to do when the supposed guardians of your safety themselves become a threat.

It’s part of a larger question: how can you guarantee that another person will place your interests first and not their own?...

Freedom or Safety.

 

[boedicca]

During the current Virtue Signaling Preening Fest to promote Mo Bettta Gun Control, the "solution" of mandatory gun seizures (the Australia Plan) is frequently mentioned.

In other news, a 22 year old man was shot to death by police for holding a cellphone in his back yard.

So, Riddle Me This:

If police are so trigger happy that they will shoot to death a man holding a cellphone because he might have a weapon, what is your estimate of the body count when the same police go around trying to seize 300 million guns across the country?

How does this figure compare to the average number of students killed by mass shooters each year?

I have a difficult time believing the police would show up for work on the day they were set to go confiscate guns. But day one would go good I’m sure. They would have folks just bring them in. Piles of guns would be “stolen” likely ending up in fast and furious type programs. Crooks would get them to. The home invasions would pick up as they did in australia. Still, I don’t think it would go as nice as the libtards think it would.

I actually agree with that. I've stated in other threads that the majority of military and police will not support undoing the 2nd Amendment. My question was to probe the LW ideology. It's very utilitarian. So I am curious to see, in the event they could muster the jack boots to seize guns, how many people they would be willing to kill in order to FAKE prevent 30 or so student deaths each year.