It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sandy Hook lawsuit against gun maker can move forward.

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn


Out of curiosity then, where then do bows stand?

Very few people, if any, are killed these days by private citizens with arrows. If they were, bows should surely be banned, but since they aren't, we can leave them alone.

Besides, what sets guns apart is their capability of instantaneously executing the decision to kill. You can reload and shoot pretty fast with a bow if you know what you're doing, but there's still a lot of work and thinking involved. You can't just pull one out and blast away. That is what makes guns especially dangerous -- why they make addicts of people, and why they appeal so strongly to lunatics and angry losers. The Great Equalizer, don't you know?

A general ban on them is the only way.


edit on 16/4/16 by Astyanax because: of typos.




posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


Then it would only be appropriate if I reciprocated in kind and worked to deny your rights as well, wouldn't it?



I'm not sure how that follows. As I said earlier, I regard the 'right to bear arms' as merely prescriptive -- not a natural right, that is to say, but a privilege.

I think you will find it very hard to deny this.

As sauce for the goose should surely be sauce for the gander, you are welcome to try to deny me any similar privileges I happen to enjoy. My natural rights, like yours, should remain inviolate.


edit on 16/4/16 by Astyanax because: of typos.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

While you think that my rights to defend myself are simply privileges granted by the state, I find them just as basic asnd fundamental as the rights to speech and free assembly.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I think you mean the right to "defend yourself as effectively as possible" or something along those lines.

Your right to self-defense is not being infringed by denying you access to guns. They are useful, but not strictly necessary.

Not really disagreeing with you here, just pointing out that implying the only way you can defend yourself is with a gun is... Well, wrong.
edit on 16/4/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

I was mostly talking specifically about manufacturer liability if the bow is used in a crime. They share the same roots as guns, and I would imagine are marketed similarly (though less forcefully.)

Regardless, they are both long ranged instruments of death and destruction. If someone were to obtain a bow and then use it in a murder, should the makers of the bow be held liable?



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

If you get to determine how I may defend myself, then you are as authoritarian as any dictator.

I don't have that freedom then, if you get to choose.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

You already have restrictions on how you can defend yourself, though. What makes the gun so special?



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

WHY should YOU get to determine HOW I defend myself and family?

Why should you even care if I want to exercise my right to own a firearm?

What business is it of yours?



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I shouldn't. And I'm not. That's not what we're talking about though, you implied that the gun was your only option. You equated taking away guns to taking away your right to self defense.

You didn't answer my question. There are already methods that you cannot use to (legally) defend yourself. Why is the gun so special?

It don't really to me how you choose to do so. You could use a ballista and trebuchet for all I care. But the simple fact is that saying "gun rights = self defense rights" is not correct. There's an argument to be made that it would unfairly be limiting your ability to defend yourself, but as long as you are allowed some method of self-defense, you are allowed to defend yourself.
edit on 16/4/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: DBCowboy

I shouldn't. And I'm not. That's not what we're talking about though, you implied that the gun was your only option. You equated taking away guns to taking away your right to self defense.


A firearm is the option I choose.


You didn't answer my question. There are already methods that you cannot use to (legally) defend yourself. Why is the gun so special?


And I will reiterate, it is none of your business what or even why.


It don't really to me how you choose to do so. You could use a ballista and trebuchet for all I care. But the simple fact is that saying "gun rights = self defense rights" is not correct. There's an argument to be made that it would unfairly be limiting your ability to defend yourself, but as long as you are allowed some method of self-defense, you are allowed to defend yourself.


I am constantly astounded that other feel that they have a right to determine what rights I am allowed to exercise.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


I am constantly astounded that other feel that they have a right to determine what rights I am allowed to exercise.


I am constantly astounded that you either fail to realise or fail to accept that "right to bear arms" is not synonymous with "right to self defense." They are separate. Things.

If you decided you wanted to defend yourself with nukes would you suddenly be getting your right to protect yourself trampled on?

Say "you can't take away my guns because I have a right to guns."
Don't say "you can't take away my guns because I have a right to defend myself and I want to use a gun to do it."
That's ludicrous.
Ridiculous.
Insane.


edit on 16/4/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

A false equivalency. A nuke would infringe upon innocent lives.

Why I want to own a firearm or two or eight is still NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

Unless you embrace an authoritarian culture where freedom is non existent.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Not if it was used as a threat rather than a weapon. You're not allowed to own a nuke in the first place, it's not just that you can't use it. But fine. Tank? Are tranq guns mostly illegal in the US? How about those knives that are illegal for stupid reasons? What if you wanted to defend yourself with one of those?

Yeah, it's none of my business and I DON'T CARE. This isn't about the guns. I would have reacted exactly the same way if you were talking about defending yourself with a kitchen knife, or a spear. It doesn't matter if and what you want to defend yourself with, saying you can't use that specific object isn't taking away your right to defend yourself.

If I wanted that I'd be living in North Korea.
edit on 16/4/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Your right to defend yourself is natural. But you have no natural right to do it with a gun.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

It sure as hell looks like you'd embrace the North Korean culture. My rights aren't determined by you. They aren't based on what you determine them to be.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: DBCowboy

Your right to defend yourself is natural. But you have no natural right to do it with a gun.


So you get to determine how I defend myself.

North Korea much?



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn


If someone were to obtain a bow and then use it in a murder, should the makers of the bow be held liable?

Yes, I should think so. Since a bow, too, is an object designed specifically for killing.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Since a bow, too, is an object designed specifically for killing.

Which can also be used for meditative purposes.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


WHY should YOU get to determine HOW I defend myself and family?

He doesn't. I don't.

The state does.

Who is the state? In a democracy, it is your neighbours. Think about what your so-called gun rights entail under those circumstances.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Or musical ones. Violins and lutes evolved from bows.

I believe you can also use an AK-47 to open bottles. Not really that relevant to the debate, though.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join