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.

 

Dangerous Democrats Part Three -- a New Star is Born

page: 9
53
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Greven


Show me the numbers that backs up your statement... give me a citation that supports death by guns in schools is the biggest problem teenagers face... go ahead Ill wait!




You first have to be alive for the 2nd Amendment to mean anything.


I didn't say it was the biggest problem teenagers face.

I simply laid out a premise that you cannot disprove, unless you decide to say that there is no right to life.

Since you cannot disprove this, it is unsurprising that one would leap off into the territory of logical fallacies.


I can offer 4 or 5 things that are a much greater cause of death for a teenager than shootings in school, according to the Washington post only about 250 kids since columbine, and you want to offer a think of the children as the basis for your argument to further curtail American rights as written in the bill of rights.

So in short your argument is purely emotional based and there might not be a worse reason on this planet for changing the bill of rights.
edit on 25-3-2018 by Irishhaf because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Greven


Show me the numbers that backs up your statement... give me a citation that supports death by guns in schools is the biggest problem teenagers face... go ahead Ill wait!




You first have to be alive for the 2nd Amendment to mean anything.


I didn't say it was the biggest problem teenagers face.

I simply laid out a premise that you cannot disprove, unless you decide to say that there is no right to life.

Since you cannot disprove this, it is unsurprising that one would leap off into the territory of logical fallacies.


I can offer 4 or 5 things that are a much greater cause of death for a teenager than shootings in school, according to the Washington post only about 250 kids since columbine, and you want to offer a think of the children as the basis for your argument to further curtail American rights as written in the bill of rights.

So in short your argument is purely emotional based and there might not be a worse reason on this planet for changing the bill of rights.


His clever observation that dead people can't exercise their rights didn't convince you? I mean, it was totally a case for removing all rights. Who needs them, we're all gonna die sometime.



posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

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?


Keep arguing the 2nd amendment killed these kids. That'll really get you some change.


Seriously, are you guys trying to sabotage your own movement?

Apparently one of the speakers yesterday hadn't gotten the memo:


There are so very many things, so many steps to take. Like right now, sign our petition. It takes two seconds and it matters. We will take the big and we will take the small, but we will keep fighting. When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.


Gun grabber 101, don't tell them you'll never be satisfied. You're supposed to pretend you only want a couple small changes. Also funny, right before she said this, she said this:


All for that assault weapons ban to keep these weapons of war out of the hands of civilians who do not need them. All for the prohibition of high-capacity magazines. Because no hunter will ever need access to a magazine that can kill 17 in mere minutes.


Completely unaware that the shooter at her school only had 10-round magazines. These are the faces of the gun control movement, admitting the end goal out loud and preaching their own ignorance for all to see. I hope you enjoyed the big crowd that made you feel like you were "winning" because that's gonna be your only lasting victory with a message like this, a big crowd.

Please, read what is actually posted.

The poster I responded to stated that the 2nd Amendment is a right, asked if people were trying to restrict/remove it.

I noted that, in order for the 2nd Amendment to be a right, one would have to be alive to exercise it.

I did not argue that the 2nd Amendment killed these kids. I'm not part of any 'movement.' Stop ranting without thought.



posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

I find it most amazing his proclamation that he couldnt be disproven



posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Greven


Show me the numbers that backs up your statement... give me a citation that supports death by guns in schools is the biggest problem teenagers face... go ahead Ill wait!




You first have to be alive for the 2nd Amendment to mean anything.


I didn't say it was the biggest problem teenagers face.

I simply laid out a premise that you cannot disprove, unless you decide to say that there is no right to life.

Since you cannot disprove this, it is unsurprising that one would leap off into the territory of logical fallacies.


I can offer 4 or 5 things that are a much greater cause of death for a teenager than shootings in school, according to the Washington post only about 250 kids since columbine, and you want to offer a think of the children as the basis for your argument to further curtail American rights as written in the bill of rights.

So in short your argument is purely emotional based and there might not be a worse reason on this planet for changing the bill of rights.

And what does any of that have to do with my argument?



posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Irishhaf

I find it most amazing his proclamation that he couldnt be disproven

So you can be dead and exercise the 2nd Amendment?



posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

No. But when i am dead the 2nd will still exist.



posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 10:58 AM
link   
It must be exhausting to be so scared of change and too stupid to understand why it's happening.



posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Greven

No. But when i am dead the 2nd will still exist.

That wasn't the argument.

The argument is that one must first be alive for the right to bear arms to apply.

This isn't hard. That you don't like that logic is funny.



posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   
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.


edit on 25-3-2018 by Irishhaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Sure it was.

When i am dead, the right will still exist. I may not participate due to my condition....but it will still exist.

In other words, we have bit parts to play. The rights we enjoy do not. They do not die. They are rooted and established in natural law and represent the inalienable rights of humanity.



posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: crtrvt
It must be exhausting to be so scared of change and too stupid to understand why it's happening.


Mao, Stalin and Hitler all wanted change too! What's the body count of their rule? Just because people refuse change doesn't mean they are scared of it! Just might mean they have more damn sense to fight against those so brainwashed to wish for something that will cause millions of deaths perhaps?

But keep telling yourself we are scared of ya pal! lol

edit on 25-3-2018 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   


People! You see a teen on TV and he is the face of fascism? Goebbels? Hitler?


So he's bad because his parents aren't greedy business people?

What a bunch of morons ATS has become.



posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: eNumbra

Its low brow trolling and nothing more.

Godwins Law violations typically deserve ridicule.

On a side note, this "Reichwing" crap gives me the urge to punch blindly.


I would agree with you, it’s been awfully loud lately though.



posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Greven

Sure it was.

When i am dead, the right will still exist. I may not participate due to my condition....but it will still exist.

In other words, we have bit parts to play. The rights we enjoy do not. They do not die. They are rooted and established in natural law and represent the inalienable rights of humanity.


I'm not arguing against rights.

I'm arguing that you can't exercise said rights when you are dead.

Again, this is not difficult.
edit on 11Sun, 25 Mar 2018 11:15:21 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago3 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   

edit on 25-3-2018 by crtrvt because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: face23785

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?


Keep arguing the 2nd amendment killed these kids. That'll really get you some change.


Seriously, are you guys trying to sabotage your own movement?

Apparently one of the speakers yesterday hadn't gotten the memo:


There are so very many things, so many steps to take. Like right now, sign our petition. It takes two seconds and it matters. We will take the big and we will take the small, but we will keep fighting. When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.


Gun grabber 101, don't tell them you'll never be satisfied. You're supposed to pretend you only want a couple small changes. Also funny, right before she said this, she said this:


All for that assault weapons ban to keep these weapons of war out of the hands of civilians who do not need them. All for the prohibition of high-capacity magazines. Because no hunter will ever need access to a magazine that can kill 17 in mere minutes.


Completely unaware that the shooter at her school only had 10-round magazines. These are the faces of the gun control movement, admitting the end goal out loud and preaching their own ignorance for all to see. I hope you enjoyed the big crowd that made you feel like you were "winning" because that's gonna be your only lasting victory with a message like this, a big crowd.

Please, read what is actually posted.

The poster I responded to stated that the 2nd Amendment is a right, asked if people were trying to restrict/remove it.

I noted that, in order for the 2nd Amendment to be a right, one would have to be alive to exercise it.

I did not argue that the 2nd Amendment killed these kids. I'm not part of any 'movement.' Stop ranting without thought.


So what was the point? There are a lot of things you can't do when you're dead. My counter-argument is you can do a lot of things when you're alive.



posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   

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.

edit on 25/3/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Greven

Sure it was.

When i am dead, the right will still exist. I may not participate due to my condition....but it will still exist.

In other words, we have bit parts to play. The rights we enjoy do not. They do not die. They are rooted and established in natural law and represent the inalienable rights of humanity.


I'm not arguing against rights.

I'm arguing that you can't exercise said rights when you are dead.

Again, this is not difficult.


Humans breathe oxygen. Don't argue with me. I'm making a pointless point.



posted on Mar, 25 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   

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?




top topics



 
53
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join