True or false: any personal freedom that brings harm to society in general should...

[kwc57]

The irony of your post, not to mention your unawareness of the irony, is simply delightful.

Speaking of unawareness of one's own ironic commentaries.

Name them you gutless fuck.

Don't go all TDM on us.

 

[Spoonman]

The irony of your post, not to mention your unawareness of the irony, is simply delightful.

Speaking of unawareness of one's own ironic commentaries.

Name them you gutless fuck.

ooooooooh ! temper, temper

 

[nodoginnafight]

Speaking of unawareness of one's own ironic commentaries.

Name them you gutless fuck.

Don't go all TDM on us.

Are you going to blame him because you didn't read (or chose to ignore) his post that proved that claim wrong?

And it's his fault for calling you on it?

Seriously?

That's the "debate" you bring to the table?

 

[Clementine]

...be outlawed.

True.

There are no personal freedoms that bring harm to others. It is certain people who bring harm, by any means available, and they could care less about rights or laws. My right to own a gun will never harm anyone unless I use it in self defense. No one else should be afraid of law abiding gun owners, in fact you should feel safer when a weapon is in the hands of a responsible individual. It's the deranged criminals, with or without guns, that people should fear.

The right to own guns does not harm others. Criminals harm others.

We have laws in place that make it a serious offense to harm others and they should carry a stiff penalty when broken. We simply need to enforce the laws and not create new laws to oppress those who do no harm. Clearly, more laws will not deter criminals. What may deter criminals is actually punishing those who do break laws instead of giving them a slap on the wrist.

 

[nodoginnafight]

My right to own a gun will never harm anyone

Only if you take reasonable precautions in securing that gun. If you are careless in keeping your weapon secure, you could contribute to the harm of another.

We simply need to enforce the laws and not create new laws

and if the NRA had not gutted the enforcement of existing laws with the Tihart Amendments, your solution may have worked.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What is "society"?


Can the rights to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness be UNALIENABLE if we must be concerned about "society"?

.

I think that is the point of the OP, that rights should be stripped if it is declared that doing so will serve society. That as a people, we should sacrifice some for the benefit of others.

The ultimate expression of the principle Billy puts forth would be a village of 150 people that had only enough food stores to provide for 100. In the view of the left, 50 people should be killed so that "society" can flourish. The right to life is denied so that the needs of society are met.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What is "society"?


Can the rights to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness be UNALIENABLE if we must be concerned about "society"?

.

I think that is the point of the OP, that rights should be stripped if it is declared that doing so will serve society. That as a people, we should sacrifice some for the benefit of others.

The ultimate expression of the principle Billy puts forth would be a village of 150 people that had only enough food stores to provide for 100. In the view of the left, 50 people should be killed so that "society" can flourish. The right to life is denied so that the needs of society are met.

This is especially so if the liberals get to choose which 50 people get the axe.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

True or false: any personal freedom that brings harm to society in general should...

...be outlawed.

True.

Define "harm".​

 

[Uncensored2008]

What is "society"?


Can the rights to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness be UNALIENABLE if we must be concerned about "society"?

.

I think that is the point of the OP, that rights should be stripped if it is declared that doing so will serve society. That as a people, we should sacrifice some for the benefit of others.

The ultimate expression of the principle Billy puts forth would be a village of 150 people that had only enough food stores to provide for 100. In the view of the left, 50 people should be killed so that "society" can flourish. The right to life is denied so that the needs of society are met.

This is especially so if the liberals get to choose which 50 people get the axe.

That's a given. The "leaders" determine the "worth" of each to society. Loyalty being the primary indicator.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think that is the point of the OP, that rights should be stripped if it is declared that doing so will serve society. That as a people, we should sacrifice some for the benefit of others.

The ultimate expression of the principle Billy puts forth would be a village of 150 people that had only enough food stores to provide for 100. In the view of the left, 50 people should be killed so that "society" can flourish. The right to life is denied so that the needs of society are met.

This is especially so if the liberals get to choose which 50 people get the axe.

That's a given. The "leaders" determine the "worth" of each to society. Loyalty being the primary indicator.

Gotta surround yourself with useful idiots.

 

[kwc57]

Name them you gutless fuck.

Don't go all TDM on us.

Are you going to blame him because you didn't read (or chose to ignore) his post that proved that claim wrong?

And it's his fault for calling you on it?

Seriously?

That's the "debate" you bring to the table?

Oh hell, now you're going all TDM too. Is it something in the water today?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Speaking of unawareness of one's own ironic commentaries.

Name them you gutless fuck.

Don't go all TDM on us.

I'm indulging myself with a day of impatience with you foolish people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sometimes it is difficult for people to admit/see that certain personal freedoms cause societal harm.

-Simple ownership/possession of a firearm - any kind of firearm - harms no one.
-Simple ownership/possession of a firearm - any kind of firearm - places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

Was there anything else?

You could say that about virtually any weapon, including chemicals, biologicals, etc.

Are you attempting to argue that it should be unconstitutional to ban the possession of anything that until it were actually used, does not cause harm?

 

[JakeStarkey]

...be outlawed.

True.

Not if it is protected behavior or thought.

The KKK and the NBPP are scums of the earth, but they have the right to think and act out being scums of the earth.

 

[Oddball]

Name them you gutless fuck.

Don't go all TDM on us.

Are you going to blame him because you didn't read (or chose to ignore) his post that proved that claim wrong?

And it's his fault for calling you on it?

Seriously?

That's the "debate" you bring to the table?

Carby's stupid post proved nothing of the sort.

Where can I buy myself a truckload of this "society" thingy you guys are yammering about?

Is it bigger than a bread box?

 

[Oddball]

Name them you gutless fuck.

Don't go all TDM on us.

I'm indulging myself with a day of impatience with you foolish people.

The only fool here is you, fool.

 

[Oddball]

As long as that gunowner takes reasonable steps to secure that weapon, I agree.

"Reasonable" as determined how and by whom?

reasonable as determined in the same way we make these determinations in our participatory form of government. ?

Could you be just a wee bit more vague, tovarich?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The courts decide these matters via a set of standards,

strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis review...


Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Spoonman]

The courts decide these matters via a set of standards,

strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis review...


Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so like they did with citizens united right? glad you agree

 

[NYcarbineer]

Don't go all TDM on us.

I'm indulging myself with a day of impatience with you foolish people.

The only fool here is you, fool.

Ah, once again we are treated with an outburst by the delegation from Fake Libertarianstan.