Guns violate our inalienable rights, rather than protect them

reply to post by DaTroof


First, it seems that you are operating from a mistaken understanding of what inalienable rights are. Only a government can violate inalienable rights.

Inalienable rights is a concept of liberty that only has meaning when a people are creating a government of conferred powers; where it is a fundamental founding principle that ALL power resides first in the people and the people create government by surrendering a limited amount of their power and structure them in a way that delegates government its duties.

Some of those powers are of such an intrinsic quality of being human that a person can not legitimately confer them to the disposition / care of another. Those are inalienable rights. This also creates a code of legitimacy for the government being created as no legitimate government would accept the surrender of those rights, if they were offered.

Inalienable rights is a meaningless concept ( to the point of being philosophically non-existent) between private citizens (i.e., criminal / victim).

If one were to bring your OP into the fold of what inalienable rights really are we would state:

Any demand that peaceable citizens surrender their means of self defense is a violation of inalienable rights. No power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the possession and use of the personal arms of the private citizen so NONE EXISTS.

It is not the responsibility of a peaceable, law-abiding citizen to prove to you that a right to arms (and self defense) exist; it is your responsibility to plead that a new power to restrain our right should be granted to you.

People need to educate themselves about the constitution!! When it was written it did not contain a bill of rights, it specifically gave the federal, state and people certain rights.

It was argued that no where in the constitution does it give the federal or state governments the ability to regulate freedom of speech or to outlaw fire arms. But it was argued, that if certain rights were not specifically mentioned, that the governments would eventually take away our rights.

The Bill of Rights, specifically the first 10, give the People certain rights to make sure liberty and freedom would not be taken away from the people. The Bill of rights even had a preamble, but the re-writers of history have taken it out of most modern texts. Take away one of the first ten amendments and the whole constitution fails!!

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed! It specifically mentions the people!

The first amendment says congress shall pass no law regulating free speech or the establishment of a national religion. No where does it mention seperation of church and state or that the people have a right to free speech. It only mentions...the right of the people to peacefully address the government shall not be governed.

People also argue the 2nd only refers to muskets, since the writers could never see the modern evolution of firearms. But it was well noted, that the writers intended it to include all weapons of war that the government had, to keep tyranny at bay!!

The 2nd amendment was intended to cover all modern weapons that would come with improved technology. Just like the 1st amendment covers the internet, mass produced newspapers/ magazine, TV, radio and other modern technology.

Telephones and cell phones were not even a concept that could be seen by our founding fathers but yet this technology is protected from warrentless wire taps. Cars are also subject to this illegal search issue but yet having a car is a privilage not a right.

People always argue the 2nd amendment isnt supposed to keep up with technology, but yet the others are supposed to, you cant pick or choose, its all or none!!! The Bill of Rights applies to THE PEOPLE not the government and shall not be regulated!!! We were given certain rights that the government CAN NOT take away!!

If the preamble states life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....when a person breaks into my house and tries to take these away from me...do I not have right to try to stop them?

I sympathize with the op.

a couple decades ago, people never even locked their doors at night.

I remember the very moment it all changed, for my community at least. there was a news story ongoing for weeks about the body of a young girl found in the local foothills. from then on, people talked differently, treated their neighbors differently, and began to lock their doors every night before bed.

what I have is not some mere fantasy (dragon unicorn?!), but rather, a very clear memory of a time when we all were much safer and happier. yes, I suppose there were genuine "bad guys" back then as well. there were plenty of guns as well, I imagine. I do not honestly believe that our world is any more dangerous now than it ever has been. so, what's changed?

people's mindset.


so, if you believe that locking your door and clutching your gun and letting them frisk you at the airport is going to make you safe, then it is my opinion that YOU are the one living in fantasy. meanwhile, we are collectively creating a world that is less worthwhile for living in. its got to stop somewhere.

for me......it stops HERE.

reply to post by DaTroof


Ok, How bout this,

I'm going to rape you

*Racks a Round*

Guess I'm not

See Don't need to shoot

reply to post by DaTroof


How can an inanimate object violate one's rights? People violate other people's rights. You have made an incredibly stupid argument.

reply to post by tgidkp


it stops HERE.

What does that even mean? The person you were who could stand violence to exist in the world stopped an 4-1-2013 @ 07:12 PM? Violence will continue to happen until the judgement of the world.

This negates your entire argument.

Mother shoots intruder, protects kids

reply to post by exitusstatuquo


it means that i, personally, will not participate in the proliferation of violence and threat of violence in our world ....not even to my own self defense.

it means that, although I would never dream of taking your precious guns away, I still hold you and others like you in the highest contempt for being willfully blind to the most obvious double-think of our modern era:

"war is peace".

there is ONLY ONE WAY to end war....and it's NOT for THEM to drop THEIR guns....

its for YOU to drop YOURS.

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by exitusstatuquo

 

there is ONLY ONE WAY to end war....and it's NOT for THEM to drop THEIR guns....

its for YOU to drop YOURS.

I'm leaning towards the side of no gun control but I'm not leaning too far as to not be swayed by good remarks and ideas from the other side, and I have heard some good ones, but this is honestly the single scariest thing I've ever seen someone say on this site.

When I read this I just imagined a futuristic world with big TV monitors on billboards and TVs at eye level near sidewalks with some scary looking/very angry guy yelling this at the viewers and pointing his finger at them while LEOs in black SWAT gear patrol the streets with assault rifles. Man, that's scary.

reply to post by AlphaX


your vision coincides well with Orwell's 1984, which is where the phrase "war is peace" comes from. however, I think you have misread my intent.

so then, let me ask, what would you say is the path to world peace?

reply to post by tgidkp

Well I certainly don't think it would be achieved by civilians relinquishing their weapons to the government while they get to keep theirs.

Honestly, being the pessimist that I am, though I try not to be, I would have to say nothing short of a miracle would bring world peace at this point. Something like total enlightenment of the world would have to occur and I have no idea how to make that happen.

reply to post by tgidkp


Your desire to die for your belief that violence is not the answer is a great contribution to the concept of Darwinism. Your species will soon die out leaving those willing to die to secure their children the right of self defense. Good luck with extinction and so long.

I think anti-gun people should be silenced. It should be illegal to say bad things about guns.



Before any mods decide to OT this, keep in mind that this is the very crap form the left that gets MSM play on a daily basis. Sounds a little different this time, though.

OP,

I feel your pain that people are dying by guns, and that is a terrible thing for all of mankind,
but just look at Chicago: They have endorsed fully, and implemented your ideals by making all guns illegal, but look what that has done:

Over 500 deaths by guns in one year, even though the guns are banned completely.. No one is supposed to have them at all (except LE and government) Those deaths by guns are the highest in the world for any city (I think), and it is one of your so called gun free zones.

And now Illinois is trying to hijack all it's citizens by passing an almost total gun ban in the state. If this happens going by the "Chicago" model, how many gun deaths in this new gun free state will you see? None? not even a 1 in a billion chance will that happen. There will be death by guns there in your utopia gun free state. It will become globally legendary in how your ideals are so flawed and fantasy dreaming.

These people who think they can elliminate the death by banning guns are like lemmings running off a cliff of delusion. So it is really you, and those thinking like you who are trying to put yourself inside a feel good fantasy world, but it will implode around you in a showering fire of self delusion and eventually, total intellectual death.

This is because of failure to face the truth that guns themselves are not the cause, and failure to take any real responsibility for the real cause, and sweep it under the rug just by legislating guns away, because they won't ever go away in reality until judgement day comes.

And the real scary thing is that our government is actually going to try and do this, but are they all really dumb enough to believe it will work? I think many actually are this stupid, and the others are laughing at how effective the deception is, so they can unleash their real goals after the guns of all the lawful good folks don't have them anymore.

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Anti-abortion activists try to pull the same stunt you're trying to pull with the preamble.

Aint gonna work.

The problem with that debate is the primary issue as to when an American is an American. My opinion is when the umbilical cord is removed, but that's a completely separate issue. Nice deflection though.

Well, my opinion is that when I point a firearm at somebody, they stop being protected as an American because they are violating my civil rights. Your opinion is fine so long as mine is too.

reply to post by DaTroof


Well this is a nonsense argument.
What do you lose if someone points a gun at you? The same thing as if they point a knife, spear, slingshot, etc? Nothing?

There are millions of guns in the US, very very few of them are used in crimes. A majority of law abiding citizens should lose their rights because a small minority of criminals misuse firearms?

I'm searching for an acronym to send to the op.......help me make one....
what would work for inbred ingrate what we tell 'em in the south..

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by forgetmenot

Originally posted by DaTroof
The psychological effect of killing a man(in defense), what right does that infringe?

None if the gun was used for self defense.

"Your rights stop where mine begin"

edit on 4-1-2013 by forgetmenot because: (no reason given)

I know someone who has killed a man in self-defense. Do you? He tells me about his inner struggles he faces, and it's not something you just shrug off.

Let me give a situation and then ask your suggestion as to the better outcome in your opinion....

Let us say one of your family members has to work late, one of your female family members. They are heading to their car to come home after a long shift. Someone stops them at the car where they are alone and has ill intent on their mind... Would it be better for the woman to be trained and have a gun in her purse with a proper permit to carry it to protect herself OR would she fare better by trying to hit him with her purse? This very thing happened to my mother. Who managed to have a gun in her purse and be properly trained to use it. She kept her life that night...but I would like to know how you can manage to think that a woman in that situation is SAFER without the firearm and the training to use it?

The attacker is infringing on her right to LIFE, LIBERTY and HER pursuit of HAPPINESS. How is her protecting herself from him infringing on ANY of his rights...he has just thrown them ALL away. Once you commit a crime you give up those inalienable rights don't you?

reply to post by exitusstatuquo


What armed citizens stood up to the tyrannical government of 1970?

Originally posted by DaTroof

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

When I point a gun at you, what do you lose?

When gunplay occurs, what usually ends up getting lost?

The psychological effect of killing a man(in defense), what right does that infringe?

you are making no sense.

those words were defended with arms in those days..

as they are today.

if you take away the ability of the citizens to defend those words..

you take away your ability to speak your words.