Guns

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

You guys are fucking loonies.

There's an intelligent counter-argument...lol

 

[frigidweirdo]

The desire for personal liberty and freedom is innate in man.

So that makes it a right then, does it? Anything that humans desire, must be a right?

Humans desire a home, they desire food, they desire all sorts of things. So these are all rights then?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

So that makes it a right then, does it? Anything that humans desire, must be a right?

Humans desire a home, they desire food, they desire all sorts of things. So these are all rights then?

If I came at you with a meat cleaver, you would not fight back?

Please answer my question frigidweirdo

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you saying freedom and liberty didn't exist before the government invented them?...lol

Well, you have to ask yourself what "freedom" and "liberty" are.

In the past times most people were not free and did not have liberty. People had to survive. They had to grow enough food to survive, or hunt and gather to survive. There wasn't freedom. Most people would either live under someone who had lots of power, or lived in a tribe where there weren't many choices to be made.

The reason people went to the Americas was to try and get some semblance of freedom, away from a church that controlled most things they did, and controlled the society they were in. From monarchs who had lots of power and poor people who could be killed and there might not be consequences, but if they stole a loaf of bread, or went poaching, they might lose their life.

The government didn't "invent" freedom. Freedom has been born out of economic success. When there's enough food that people can make the choice to move to the towns or cities and in those towns and cities they can earn enough money to live well, then they can have some sense of freedom.

Imagine in China today, the people have far more freedom than people had in Europe five hundred years ago.

 

[Woodznutz]

So that makes it a right then, does it? Anything that humans desire, must be a right?

Humans desire a home, they desire food, they desire all sorts of things. So these are all rights then?

Personal liberty and freedom are protected rights in America...for now at least.
The Dems believe the things you mention are rights, at least for minorities.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Personal liberty and freedom are protected rights in America...for now at least.
The Dems believe the things you mention are rights, at least for minorities.

I know they are. Rights are a human construct, developed from the 1200s and the Magna Carta, through the English Bill of Rights to the US Bill of Rights.

They're a power grab, taking power from the rulers and giving it to others. Not all rights in England were given to all people, rights have changed. The US Bill of Rights really helped cement rights as we see them now, rather than what they were in England.

 

[Woodznutz]

Well, you have to ask yourself what "freedom" and "liberty" are.

In the past times most people were not free and did not have liberty. People had to survive. They had to grow enough food to survive, or hunt and gather to survive. There wasn't freedom. Most people would either live under someone who had lots of power, or lived in a tribe where there weren't many choices to be made.

The reason people went to the Americas was to try and get some semblance of freedom, away from a church that controlled most things they did, and controlled the society they were in. From monarchs who had lots of power and poor people who could be killed and there might not be consequences, but if they stole a loaf of bread, or went poaching, they might lose their life.

The government didn't "invent" freedom. Freedom has been born out of economic success. When there's enough food that people can make the choice to move to the towns or cities and in those towns and cities they can earn enough money to live well, then they can have some sense of freedom.

Imagine in China today, the people have far more freedom than people had in Europe five hundred years ago.

Many in America think true freedom is freedom from any responsibility for anything.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Many in America think true freedom is freedom from any responsibility for anything.

Oh yes. I'd love to make a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.

People need to know what responsibilities they have in society, because people are, in general, selfish. They take what they want and they don't put anything back. Society can only function if there's knowledge of responsibilities to society.

They need to know freedom, and all rights, have limits too.

 

[Woodznutz]

Oh yes. I'd love to make a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.

People need to know what responsibilities they have in society, because people are, in general, selfish. They take what they want and they don't put anything back. Society can only function if there's knowledge of responsibilities to society.

They need to know freedom, and all rights, have limits too.

I think that ship has sailed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think that ship has sailed.

The problem in the US is that the politicians have created a really bad situation where they benefit and the country loses. I call for Proportional Representation all the time, because, realistically, it's the only way for the US to actually have sensible politics.

The fall of Rome has various factors, if you read any list, you'll probably find more than 50% are happening in the US right now. And no one cares.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I know they are. Rights are a human construct...

Thats the most moronic thing I've ever heard...lol

 

[frigidweirdo]

Thats the most moronic thing I've ever heard...lol

Bye

 

[Captain Caveman]

There's an intelligent counter-argument...lol

The world watches America constantly scream on how Free they are and all these Rights you enjoy but no one else does, yet, they're just things every living organism gets on with.

 

[Batcat]

It is a stupid idea.

The notion of possessing guns to ‘defend against’ government is as ridiculous as it is wrong and devoid of merit.

The citizens of Ukraine are doing rather well against the Russians who are trying to invade their nation. We have the most advanced military in the world but we didn’t do all that well in Afghanistan, Iraq or Vietnam. Never underestimate an armed citizenry.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The citizens of Ukraine are doing rather well against the Russians who are trying to invade their nation. We have the most advanced military in the world but we didn’t do all that well in Afghanistan, Iraq or Vietnam. Never underestimate an armed citizenry.

The notion of possessing guns to ‘defend against’ government is as ridiculous as it is wrong and devoid of merit.

There’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes insurrectionist dogma.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First – it doesn’t take from the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process.

It does not authorize lawless armed insurrection against a government constitutionally elected reflecting the will of the people.

It does not authorize lawless armed insurrection against a government subjectively and incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical’ by a minority of armed insurrectionists.

The Framers did not amend the Constitution to authorize the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They need to know freedom, and all rights, have limits too.

Correct.

No right is ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute’ – including the Second Amendment right.

Government has the authority, consistent with the will of the people and Constitutional case law, to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights – including the Second Amendment right.

Limits and restrictions placed on the Second Amendment right by government is neither a ‘violation’ nor ‘infringement’ on the Second Amendment right.

 

[Batcat]

The notion of possessing guns to ‘defend against’ government is as ridiculous as it is wrong and devoid of merit.

There’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes insurrectionist dogma.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First – it doesn’t take from the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process.

It does not authorize lawless armed insurrection against a government constitutionally elected reflecting the will of the people.

It does not authorize lawless armed insurrection against a government subjectively and incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical’ by a minority of armed insurrectionists.

The Framers did not amend the Constitution to authorize the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

The founders had just overthrown their British government and so valued the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government if the government they created failed to represent them fairly. In order to be able to do so they realized they needed to own firearms.

Second Amendment: Last Line of Defense Against Tyranny

The Second Amendment is our last defense against tyranny. The right to keep and bear arms is a doomsday provision to be used as a last resort when all other rights fail. The founders saw firearm ownership as so necessary that they enumerated this right second in the Bill of Rights, immediately...

conservative-daily.com

***snip***

The Second Amendment is our last defense against tyranny. The right to keep and bear arms is a doomsday provision to be used as a last resort when all other rights fail. The founders saw firearm ownership as so necessary that they enumerated this right second in the Bill of Rights, immediately after defining the right to free speech.

***snip***


The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects your right to keep and bear arms not so that you can grant the government consent, but so that, if necessary, you can act on your dissent!



John Locke writes that free men are obligated to dissolve tyrannical governments. He explains that when all earthly courts fail to uphold the rights of man, the citizen has the obligation and duty to take up arms against tyranny and make an “appeal to heaven.”



The Founders didn’t enshrine the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution so that you could go hunting, nor did they explicitly focus on carrying firearms in public for self-defense. For years, politicians have strayed away from the true purpose of the Second Amendment because, quite frankly, it threatens their very existence! The Second Amendment exists because tyranny, corruption, and abuse of power are unfortunate parts of the human experience.



We are 80 million gun owners endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, one of which is the right to keep and bear arms. This is a natural right given to all men and the Constitution merely protects it. We gave our government power and we reserve the right to take that authority away when it becomes destructive to our liberty!



The Second Amendment wasn’t designed to protect our right to hunt deer… it protects our right to “hunt” tyrants!

How The Second Amendment Works To Prevent Tyranny

The Second Amendment was supposed to protect us from government by dispersing its coercive power among the people. We still adhere to that system today.

thefederalist.com

 

[Open Bolt]

No right is ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute’ – including the Second Amendment right.

That is incorrect. Rights in America, including the Second Amendment, are absolute. If a law is in conflict with them, then the law is unconstitutional.

Government has the authority, consistent with the will of the people and Constitutional case law, to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights – including the Second Amendment right.

Constitutional case law says that the government cannot prevent people from having enough firepower for effective self defense.

Constitutional case law says that the government cannot prevent people from having guns that there is no justification for restricting.

Limits and restrictions placed on the Second Amendment right by government is neither a ‘violation’ nor ‘infringement’ on the Second Amendment right.

That is incorrect. If the limits and restrictions prevent people from having enough firepower for effective self defense, or prevent people from having guns that there is no justification for restricting, then the limits and restrictions violate the Second Amendment.

 

[Blues Man]

Oh yes. I'd love to make a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.

People need to know what responsibilities they have in society, because people are, in general, selfish. They take what they want and they don't put anything back. Society can only function if there's knowledge of responsibilities to society.

They need to know freedom, and all rights, have limits too.

The only responsibility people have to society is to not violate the rights of others.

 

[Blues Man]

Correct.

No right is ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute’ – including the Second Amendment right.

Government has the authority, consistent with the will of the people and Constitutional case law, to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights – including the Second Amendment right.

Limits and restrictions placed on the Second Amendment right by government is neither a ‘violation’ nor ‘infringement’ on the Second Amendment right.

No one said it was.

The Second only states a person is allowed to keep and bear (own and carry) firearms.

The second does not give anyone the right to fire those weapons or to shoot anyone.

In fact we have very strict laws regarding the discharge of firearms and we have strict definitions of murder and self defense.