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.
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Greven
It was not an argument it was a statement, if you want to debate the subject try bringing facts to support your side.
The 2nd was around before I was born, it did not invalidate the right it was there because it was in the bill of rights.
When I die I hope for it to still be there, and if you want to tell me it should be curtailed/removed you should bring facts to support yourself because you should expect pushback.
You want a formal argument?
The 2nd Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms.
To exercise a right, one must be alive.
Thus, to exercise the 2nd Amendment requires one to be alive.
It didn't apply to you before you were born, nor will it apply to you after you die.
These children are concerned about guns killing them before they are even permitted to exercise that 2nd Amendment right.
Is the 2nd Amendment superior to the inherent right to live?
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Do you know the difference between civil rights and inalienable rights? Therein lies your answer.
I don't see any other inalienable rights up for debate. Maybe we need less freedom of speech? Or privacy?
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Greven
It was not an argument it was a statement, if you want to debate the subject try bringing facts to support your side.
The 2nd was around before I was born, it did not invalidate the right it was there because it was in the bill of rights.
When I die I hope for it to still be there, and if you want to tell me it should be curtailed/removed you should bring facts to support yourself because you should expect pushback.
You want a formal argument?
The 2nd Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms.
To exercise a right, one must be alive.
Thus, to exercise the 2nd Amendment requires one to be alive.
It didn't apply to you before you were born, nor will it apply to you after you die.
These children are concerned about guns killing them before they are even permitted to exercise that 2nd Amendment right.
Is the 2nd Amendment superior to the inherent right to live?
So you think either 2nd or death.
You equate gun ownership to 100% certain death.
You are a book burner. You want to deny rights and can only go to the extreme comparison.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Greven
And completely unneccesary to point out in adult conversations.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: xuenchen
All I am detecting from this thread, and other similar threads, is fear. Fear that your "natural order" might be coming to and end. Fear that people like you will no longer dictate how the rest of the country acts. Fear that your carefully crafted lies are finally unravelling.
Would you be concerned if censorship was on the rise?
Just curious.
Because Americans see the 2nd Amendment as a right. A Constitutionally guaranteed right.
And we have people that are trying to remove/restrict that right.
Is it only gun rights that you seem okay with destroying? How about the rights to free expression?
Would you be okay with that right being gone as well?
You first have to be alive for the 2nd Amendment to mean anything.
That's what the kids are concerned about.
Does the 2nd trump the right to live?
No, because the 2nd does not give the right to kill people outside defence. It certainly does trump the right to live if that life is trying to end yours.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: donnydeevil
The right to defend ones self is an inalienable right. Please spend time reading the literature on tue subject matter.....its well established.
Using our brains to make tools is human behavior. Guns are a human defense mechanism. Taki g guns is akin to declawing a cat. A violation of that animals natural right to defend and feed itself.
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: xuenchen
All I am detecting from this thread, and other similar threads, is fear. Fear that your "natural order" might be coming to and end. Fear that people like you will no longer dictate how the rest of the country acts. Fear that your carefully crafted lies are finally unravelling.
Would you be concerned if censorship was on the rise?
Just curious.
Because Americans see the 2nd Amendment as a right. A Constitutionally guaranteed right.
And we have people that are trying to remove/restrict that right.
Is it only gun rights that you seem okay with destroying? How about the rights to free expression?
Would you be okay with that right being gone as well?
You first have to be alive for the 2nd Amendment to mean anything.
That's what the kids are concerned about.
Does the 2nd trump the right to live?
No, because the 2nd does not give the right to kill people outside defence. It certainly does trump the right to live if that life is trying to end yours.
Wrong application.
Your right to live trumps the right to live of someone trying to kill you.
originally posted by: RomeByFire
If you put a black and white filter on a picture of high-school students you send right-wing cultists into an array of triggering about how he's literally Hitler.
So stupid
originally posted by: intrepid
originally posted by: face23785
originally posted by: crtrvt
It must be exhausting to be so scared of change and too stupid to understand why it's happening.
When you have to make # up about the other side, you're losing.
Are you saying it's not fear that drives the pro gun movement?
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Greven
And completely unneccesary to point out in adult conversations.
Strange that there were so many responses otherwise.