Yet Another Way of Life Threatened by Those Who Want To Force Other People How to Live.

reply to post by yadda333


I love how you try to derail the thread, and the fact that i proved your arguments make no sense at all and have no ground whatsoever...

This claim of yours that because society and government has changed we should be giving away natural rights like the second amendment shows your state of mind lacks any common sense.

Your inability to admit when you are wrong is common among your group/people like you, as is your inability to put blame, and personal responsibility where it is due... Instead you, like so many others want to blame "guns", and the right of people to own and bear arms for crimes like this one...

Nice try...

reply to post by Logos23


I really don't care at all about your "royal family". They can live or die for all I care. I only mention the fact that countries in Europe like yours still have royalty when Europeans tell Americans or any other people who want to keep their rights, such as the right to own and bear arms, that "we must get with the times and become civilized"...

But hey, you go ahead and keep your royal family, as well as using the death of innocent children to further your political and social ambitions... People like you have become very proficient in doing exactly that...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

But hey, you go ahead and keep using the death of innocent children to further your political and social ambitions... People like you have become very proficient in doing exactly that...

I would in no way have considered being dragged back if not for that spiteful and inexcusable comment......I have not once on this thread stated I believe that guns should be banned in the US....infact I don't believe that is the answer to your problem and have stated that in several places around the forums.......therefore your use of drama and wording and the accusation you make in your statement above was deplorable!
I'm pretty sure that you probably have some valid points to make...but if you want to be heard and actually make a difference then stop making all your arguments so damn personal and twisting peoples words.
This reply is probably way more polite than you deserved...but I walk away with my dignity intact

Originally posted by Logos23
...
This reply is probably way more polite than you deserved...but I walk away with my dignity intact

Then you should have stated yourn point from the start, instead since your first post all you have done is accusate me of using a tabloid, despite me using other sources including another UK newspaper that corroborates what I wrote, and in general you seemed to disagree with my arguments.

Not once in your previous responses did you state what you just wrote in your last response.

In fact you even posted the following.

Originally posted by Logos23
Actually..... for the period of 2009 in the UK there were 18 gun homicides ....for the same period there were 9,146 in the US.....considering that the US has 5 times more people than the UK then you do the maths on comparing the gun homicide rates between the two countries!

My argument was that the gun ban in the UK has not made it safer, and in fact gun crimes have increased, not decreased. Not only did I post the evidence from those newspapers, but I gave a link to a video of what many British people have to say about gun control and the banning of fox hunting.

In the argument you made above you seemed to imply that it is safer in the UK because of the gun ban, but you continuously fail to realize that the high crime rate in the U.S., and including the gun crimes in the U.S. occur mostly in cities and states where guns and firearms are either banned, or heavily restricted. In fact the highest crime rates in the U.S. occur in cities/states that lean to the left.

You see, I can't read your mind, so I must make a conclusion from the responses you made, and that conclusion was that you seem/seemed to think that gun control works, when in fact it doesn't.

As for me thinking that you were another leftwinger using the death of the children to further the leftwing agenda, perhaps it is not true of you, but it is true of a mayority of leftwingers who do use atrocities like the death of these children to further their political and social goals/agendas.

Actually, since you now claim that you are not in favour of gun control, apologies for my statement, however i can't read minds, hence why my conclusion was that you must be another leftwinger trying to use this tragedy for the leftwing agenda.

As for your statement about walking away with your dignity intact. Stop being a drama queen please.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by yadda333

 

I love how you try to derail the thread, and the fact that i proved your arguments make no sense at all and have no ground whatsoever...

This claim of yours that because society and government has changed we should be giving away natural rights like the second amendment shows your state of mind lacks any common sense.

Your inability to admit when you are wrong is common among your group/people like you, as is your inability to put blame, and personal responsibility where it is due... Instead you, like so many others want to blame "guns", and the right of people to own and bear arms for crimes like this one...

Nice try...

edit on 18-12-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

No offense--actually with much offense--I conceded the fact that you are oblivious. You have wondered down a philosophical road that you're not equipped for, and there is no use in arguing with a brick wall (that is you by the way).

In fact, I never said anything about wanting to get rid of anything. I simply pointed out how you contradicted yourself several times. I will reiterate that I don't have a strong opinion on gun control, but I do take offense to dumb arguments (and posters).

In all honesty, I think you may be having the opposite effect of what you intended. Your arguments and arguing style is so dumb, loud, and borderline insane that it pushes people like me in the opposite direction.

This actually applies to everything on this site. I used to be a pretty hard core conspiracy theorist until I realized the type of people I was associating myself with. I was into Ron Paul and Libertarians until I saw what kind of other crazies were in that group.

Posters like you have driven normal people to extremes. Now I can't help but think that is your goal......post ridiculous things in order to drive people into choosing a side. Quite genius actually. But why? Hmm....kind of like a conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by yadda333
...
Posters like you have driven normal people to extremes. Now I can't help but think that is your goal......post ridiculous things in order to drive people into choosing a side. Quite genius actually. But why? Hmm....kind of like a conspiracy theory.

What the hell are you talking/writing about now?... Talk about making no sense whatsoever. Give it up already, all you have done is make false claims, which I disproved, but you keep trying to ignore facts... The rights enumerated within the Bill of Rights, alongside others are unalienable rights...

The right to free speech is/should not be given or taken by the government, the right to own a gun is/should not be given by the government, as are many others. These are natural rights just like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Now you are sounding like George, yeah that guy you have an avatar about... Are you sure you are not him in real life?...

You are making no sense whatsoever, I posted evidence that you, and some others just want to ignore or outright dismiss despite me posting more corroborating evidence to my arguments.

If you are just going to continue to derail the thread stop responding...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Again, you are going down a road that you are not equipped for. I am not going to have a philosophical debate about natural rights with somebody whose only sources of information are biased/shortsighted websites. Philosophical debates are only entertaining if both parties are well read.

reply to post by yadda333


wow, you again? seriously?... and repeating the same BS argument which makes no sense to anyone but yourself?...

How about this, refrain from responding unless you have something intelligent to say and a concise argument. So far you haven't shown either.

The RIGHT to own and bear arms is a NATURAL/God given right which neither YOU, nor ANY government can take away.

If you can't understand that simple statement how are you EVER going to be able to make any sort of intelligent counter-argument?...

I'd love to hear the philosophical basis that ownership of firearms is a natural right. In fact I'd love to hear the philosophical basis that the ownership of ANYTHING is natural or god granted. (One's own body being the exception.)

It seems to me that to "own" something is based on the laws of a particular society defining the requirements of said ownership.

If a "criminal" or a "crazy" stole your Colt .45, would you say the firearm was yours because it was "naturally yours"? Or that "god" told you it was yours?

Or, to prove the Colt .45 was yours and it was stolen from you, would you produce the receipt from when you purchased it? And that receipt, being a legal document in society (i.e. a contract), would then be recognized by society as your "ownership" of that firearm.

From what I gather there are no "natural" receipts (i.e. legal documents) and god doesn't have a checkout line...

Originally posted by Kandinsky
I much prefer to live in the UK as it is rather than have millions of guns available. We have some of the lowest murder rates of gun crime in the world...[url=https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdExSbktqRWpLMjNUMkFGVk5VODRyTnc#gid=0]

reply to post by NIcon


The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are among the many natural/God given rights people are born with. To have these rights you must be able to defend yourself, hence why the right to bear arms is also a natural right.

You can't have life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness without being able to defend yourself against criminals and a corrupt government.

How many times must it be shown that the most ardent pacifists, such as Ghandi, and the Dalai Lama have always been in favor of people being armed?...

Why must some people want to FORCE their ideals on others?...

What NEED do you have to want to disarm people?...

Are these people who want every citizen disarmed such control freaks that they can't let others live in peace AS THEY WANT TO LIVE?...

reply to post by NIcon


BTW, you are basing your claims that the right to bear arms is not natural on the fact that a firearm can be stolen?...

Your life can also be stolen, does that make it not a natural right as well?...

Where is your receipt that your life is yours?... Do you have a receipt that you are not a slave?... I am 100% certain that you don't have ANY receipts that say your life is yours and you are not a slave... So I guess, based on your claims that you must be a slave, and someone else owns your life...

Wow is it just me or are the gun nuts getting nuttier every day? I just can't wrap my head around what these lunatics are trying to say? Christ is a gun advocate? God given rights? Are you brain deads aware of the part of our constitution that deals with laws and religion? It is unfortunate that these weak minds cant take a step back and see how we (normal folks) view them.

I view myself as one of the normal people that the fringe lunatics are alienating. Growing up I could literally walk across the street and hunt. Most everyone I knew had a .22 for squirrels, a shot gun or two for rabbit, birds and deer. Some had a high power rifle for varmints but those were mostly found on farms or owned by those who went out of state to hunt big game. Some people had hand guns for home defense, which made sense. When an invader is closer than 5 feet a long barrel is not an asset.

I personally love guns. I love the way they look, i love the way they feel in my hand, and I love to shoot them. When I was younger I was an avid hunter, but after my tour in the military I kinda lost my stomach for killing, not too mention after you melt the barrel off of a 50 cal or 2 everything else just seems kinda like a toy. I don't understand nor will I abide by those who want to bastardized the second amendment just because they can. That totally violates the spirit and purpose of it. There is absolutely no reason or need to own assault weapons in this country. And those who keep insisting it is their right and blah, blah, blah are doing nothing more than looking like the kooks that they are to the regular folks out here. Nut on, I am sure you haven't been reached as you can't be reached, sadly it is not in your DNA. I can't imagine what it is like to live in such fear and paranoia on a daily basis. I pray that someday you find find Jesus, and he will show the true path to righteousness. Until then I stand with General McCrystal.

reply to post by soundguy


See, I think the majority of the problem is that the anti gun/pro gun control people out there purposely use mis information thinking the rest of us will believe them. News flash people, assault weapons are allready either banned or highly regulated, depending on which particular weapon you want. A civilian ar-15 IS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON hell, it's not even a rifle, it's a carbine. It is not a high powered weapon. The cartridge it fires is a varmit round people.

Look, here is the United States military definition of an assault weapon :

Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges. Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters."

So that is the Military's definition of assault rifles. So, lets look at the civilian AR-15

Is it select fire? No, semi auto only, one bullet per pull of the trigger.
Is it short? Not really. The federally regulated barrel length is 16 inches total barrel length (including a muzzle device, such as a compensator)

So, the ar-15 does not meet the requirements of an assault weapon, so stop using the label people. Also, it says right there in the definition that it is not a high powered cartridge, it's intermediate IN BETWEEN SUBMACHINEGUN (pistol rounds i.e 9mm, .45acp) and RIFLES.

There are many difference between the civilian ar platform weapons and their military counterparts. I will list them for the people that will not look it up.

The sear is different. The military version uses a select fire sear that is one of the parts that enables full auto /3 round burst. This part is regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1968 and prohibited to civilians.

The bolt / bolt carrier group. The end piece of the bolt carrier is extended on the military version to enable the bolt carrier to engage the sear enabling full auto/ burst fire.

The lower receiver. This is the main body of the weapon, it houses the fire control group. the rest of the firearm attaches to this component. The military version has a shelf cut into the rear of the inside of the receiver. This is there to accommodate the full auto sear.

Ok, there are the primary differences, there are some other minor ones, but these are the big ones. You can not and I REPEAT CAN NOT make a civilian ar into a military m4 variant easily. Can it be done? sure, but you have to have access to a machine shop and be a master machinist. Johnny Sixpack aint gonna do it in his garage on friday night.

Get some education about the topics you discuss.

Originally posted by soundguy

I don't understand nor will I abide by those who want to bastardized the second amendment just because they can. That totally violates the spirit and purpose of it. There is absolutely no reason or need to own assault weapons in this country. And those who keep insisting it is their right and blah, blah, blah are doing nothing more than looking like the kooks that they are to the regular folks out here. Nut on, I am sure you haven't been reached as you can't be reached, sadly it is not in your DNA. I can't imagine what it is like to live in such fear and paranoia on a daily basis. I pray that someday you find find Jesus, and he will show the true path to righteousness. Until then I stand with General McCrystal.

You realize that you contradicted yourself in this sentance. The second amendment is not about hunting. It is not about sport. It is not about collecting. I suggest you read some Madison and The Federalist Papers so that you can understand who are the ones actually "bastardizing" the 2nd Amendment.

Originally posted by soundguy
Wow is it just me or are the gun nuts getting nuttier every day? I just can't wrap my head around what these lunatics are trying to say? Christ is a gun advocate? God given rights? Are you brain deads aware of the part of our constitution that deals with laws and religion? It is unfortunate that these weak minds cant take a step back and see how we (normal folks) view them.
...
There is absolutely no reason or need to own assault weapons in this country. And those who keep insisting it is their right and blah, blah, blah are doing nothing more than looking like the kooks that they are to the regular folks out here. Nut on, I am sure you haven't been reached as you can't be reached, sadly it is not in your DNA. I can't imagine what it is like to live in such fear and paranoia on a daily basis. I pray that someday you find find Jesus, and he will show the true path to righteousness. Until then I stand with General McCrystal.

Wow, you are either nuts or you don't know crap about the founding of this nation...

First of all, WHERE did I write that Christ was in favour of guns?... Is your reading comprehension so bad that you can't see the difference between the Dalai Lama, Ghandi and Christ?...

The Dalai Lama, and Ghandi are/were proponents of an armed citizenry...

NOWHERE did I ever write that God should be part of the government either... so, nice try to twist, in your messed up mind , what I have written...

BUT, have you ever heard of the Declaration of Independence?...


Do you even know what it says?...

Let me try to enlighten a nut...

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
...

www.archives.gov...

Do you understand, or not understand that the founding fathers saw these rights as NATURAL/GOD GIVEN?...

Your IGNORANCE is showing through...

Not to mention that the founding fathers CLEARLY mention that the number one reason why American citizens should be armed is to fight a corrupt government... Hence why not only assault weapons, but FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS should be legal to own...

You want to call people who are not swimming in ignorance like you nuts?... Go ahead, that will not change the fact that you are nothing but an ignorant person on this topic...

People like YOU are the ones trying to bastardize the second amendment when it is obvious you are completely ignorant as to the reason the founding fathers saw a need for the second amendment...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

So what you are saying, Electric, is "the right to defend yourself" is the "natural right", not the right to "own" a firearm.

Society has every right to decide as a whole what a person can "own", including for their own defense. Society has every right to determine what is ordinarily necessary for a person to protect themselves. It also has the right to define the situations in which a person can defend themselves and how.

Now you, as a citizen, do not have to follow what society dictates. If you deem it necessary to stock up on RPG's or put landmines in your front lawn, by all means go ahead. Or if you feel it necessary to blow someone away because they called you a sissy, go right ahead. But if you are caught by society, you would then have to answer to society. You could plead your case of why you thought your actions were necessary, and you just may convince a jury.

Are you so concerned about being considered a "criminal" by the very government you are protecting yourself from? The minute the "revolution" begins all "law-abiding gun owners" would be considered "criminal" anyway.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

And no, electric, I'm not basing ownership on the fact something can be stolen. I'm basing it on the legal constructs that society has come up with to determine ownership. You know... deeds... titles... receipts. Those things people fight over all the time to determine who owns what.

And if you read my post again, I never said "Life"... I said "Body". I certainly can come up with a contract to give my "life" away. And based upon the extent of the contract, society may or may not honor such a contract. But it's still up to society.

But back to my original point of "body" being naturally yours. If someone were to cut off my hand and claim it is theirs, I could show society my bloody stump and.. get this... DNA TESTS to show that it is actually mine. So I was wrong in my first post. Nature DOES give a "receipt" in the form of DNA, at least as it concerns our own bodies.

Now do you have something equivalent to DNA tests to show ownership of a gun is a natural right or is god granted?

Originally posted by NIcon

So what you are saying, Electric, is "the right to defend yourself" is the "natural right", not the right to "own" a firearm.

You can't protect yourself against another firearm with a stick...Sorry but you are not going to win this argument...

Originally posted by NIcon

So what you are saying, Electric, is "the right to defend yourself" is the "natural right", not the right to "own" a firearm.

Do you not understand that the fouding fathers clearly say the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are among the OTHER natural rights people are born with?...

The founding fathers knew that the government, and some people would try to disarm the people yet again, because it was done to them to begin with...

Originally posted by NIcon
Society has every right to decide as a whole what a person can "own", including for their own defense. Society has every right to determine what is ordinarily necessary for a person to protect themselves. It also has the right to define the situations in which a person can defend themselves and how.

Then i guess according to YOUR point of view society has a right to dictate what people should think and do...

You want to be a puppet of society or the government? Be my guess... But neither you, society or government have a right to ANYTHING you claim they have a right to...

Originally posted by NIcon
Are you so concerned about being considered a "criminal" by the very government you are protecting yourself from? The minute the "revolution" begins all "law-abiding gun owners" would be considered "criminal" anyway.

I am no criminal, and believing and wanting to defend the U.S. Constitution, and our NATURAL/God given rights is not a reason for claiming people are criminals... Even when some of you want to do exactly this...

Originally posted by NIcon
...
Now do you have something equivalent to DNA tests to show ownership of a gun is a natural right or is god granted?

Already said it... the fact that people have a RIGHT to DEFEND themselves...

Why is that so hard to understand?...

Oh and btw, if you want a PHYSICAL receipt I have them as well... Anyone who buys a firearm gets a reciept, which is proof of ownership...