Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Guns violate our inalienable rights, rather than protect them

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:49 AM
link   

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?


TOS prevent me from saying in clear, untethered terms what I think of your comments and those like you and there is no point in my explaining why this is not the OP's Country but I will quote another real American in response to your dribble.

edit on 5-1-2013 by MajorKarma because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by exitusstatuquo
 


oh what a lovely sentiment. your mother would be proud.

I have grown accustomed to this disclaimer, which I forgot in my posts in this thread:

"disclaimer: to all the neanderthals whom might respond, "you first", I respond, "happily".



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by AlphaX
 



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


as I said before, you've misread.

my use of "them", and "theirs", was in a general sense of "bad guy" vs. "good guy". nowhere did I say that i think governments ought to be the only ones with guns. but that is the point, really, isn't it? that we all s3em to be more than willing to misunderstand each other?

btw: someone earlier in the thread got lots of stars for comparing the op to "unicorn dragon". seems to me like people who believe that peace will require a miracle are not much better off.

what kind of world do you want to live in? how can we get there?

GUNS FOR EVERYONE!!!! YESSSS!!



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by exitusstatuquo
 


oh what a lovely sentiment. your mother would be proud.

I have grown accustomed to this disclaimer, which I forgot in my posts in this thread:

"disclaimer: to all the neanderthals whom might respond, "you first", I respond, "happily".


I am sorry but I had to laugh at that statement as it reminded me of this:



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Let's ban swords too. Those things scare me.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   

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" as they say.
edit on 4-1-2013 by forgetmenot because: (no reason given)


And just where do your rights end and mine begin?????

Don't I have a right to 'pursuit of happiness' by having a gun free world?

Don't you have the right to 'pursuit of happiiness' by having as many guns as you want?

I feel safe one way and you another - but our choices affect those around us.

I have a right to live here and so do you.

Again just where do your rights end and mine begin?????



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FyreByrd


Don't I have a right to 'pursuit of happiness' by having a gun free world?



No, that's pure narcissistic thinking.

Your rights end when you start trying to tell other people what they can and cannot do.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by sconner755
 


Can you even comprehend the question I posed?

Where do my rights end? (you just blew off all my rights - my whole point of view with your arrogant reply and that is the very definition of a narcissictic attitude)

Where do your rights begin?



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


And just where do your rights end and mine begin?????
yours begin when you learn what they are.


Don't I have a right to 'pursuit of happiness'
yes


Don't you have the right to 'pursuit of happiiness' ?
yes


I feel safe one way and you another - but our choices affect those around us.
what is your point with this statement ?
'safety' or 'being safe' isn't a right


alone in the jungle ... are you going to argue your perceived 'right to safety' as the venomous snake devours your children?
i doubt it but i do firmly believe that you will instinctively (without a second thought) exercise your 'right' to self-defense.


I have a right to live here and so do you.
yes, this is true and it is also true that we have a right to defend that life.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
O.o
Lol
Trolol
ROFL
Really, our forefathers even knew about defending themselves. . .
And, to the arguement over taking one life in self defense. . . It happens all the time, it has happen in our past with our Ancestors.

Where does it say that self defense is violating our rights or what ever.

Now tell me, ill throw example
You were stuck in iraq with your team; sudden ambush from all sides. You don't want to use guns for self defense of your life, and the safety of ours, an your brothers and sisters. That your family on the battle field, so. . . Would you react to the ambush or puss out because you don't want to shoot back because it not self defense or you don't want to kill someone.

I know damn well, that I and a lot of others will shoot back. . . Defending yourself; and your family out of the ambush to make it.

I won't kill without a reason, but if I have to use deadly force to defend my self and my family then well means. Ill shoot warning shots into you, or maybe in the air to scare you. But eventually you won't make it out alive, sorry the person in fault that cause the other person to use self defense. Just like fighting



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Sorry the first paragraph of my last post didn't make sense that well i corrected it.

*You were stuck in iraq with your team; sudden ambush from all sides. You don't want to use your gun for fear of defending yourself, and puting the risk the safety of ours, an your brothers and sisters. That your family on the battle field.*



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaDe_
Yes you are allowed the right to life, but when your life threatens mine I am allowed to use force to defend my inalienable rights. Firearms are not exclusive to what you claim as an argument against these rights. You could remove gun from that statement and insert any other weapon and your argument would be the same.


EXACTLY. Our own hands are weapons that are fully capable of taking a life in the defense of our own. The problem is that when the government wants to take more of your Rights away, you won't be able to do a damn thing because they're strapped with AR's and .40's while you have your baseball bat: Enjoy death, liberal.

Otherwise, if EVERYONE was disarmed, including the government, all one would need is a bit of Krav Maga and to outweigh you by 30lbs of muscle mass and you wouldn't stand a chance. Therefore, the argument that guns are what kill people is pure poppycock. People kill people, period. If that's the argument, then you need to be against gyms, bows and arrows, baseball bats, sticks, metal pipes, BB guns, pellet guns, marbles, potato guns, potatoes, and even toasters and hair dryers. I can probably think up about 1,000 more household items that I could use to kill someone with...but a gun has always been and ALWAYS WILL BE my defense against anyone wielding any of the aforementioned items in a threatening manner to myself or my family.

Liberals need to keep their own words and decisions in check and give up whatever they want to give up. I'm not drinking their koolaid, nor eating their silver spoon of #, nor cascading over the cliff with the blind Sheeple (Sheep People.) I'll keep my GOD GIVEN RIGHTS and that's that. No one will ever tell me, or some 225,000,000 other Americans to do anything we don't really want to do and violate our core values and beliefs.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Not to mention ALCOHOL! It kills more kids, families, moms, dads, uncles, aunts, grandmas, and grandpas than gun ever could in this country. If you want to disarm people, make alcohol illegal first. Saving people is the reason right? Then save some!!!



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 


This is speaking of responsible (normal) people, not idiots who pick up a gun and kill people for the sake of killing them. There is a "rule changer" to every law of balance. Everyone is equal who drives a car...except for the nutcase who uses it as a battering ram or a get away vehicle while robbing a bank.

Everyone else..has these inalienable rights. Once you use those guns for illegal means such as blatant murder, or as irresponsibly as pointing it at someone with no due cause....you forfeit those rights. Everyone else still has them.

As for having to kill someone in defense and how you feel about it. It's the luck of the draw. Just hope that you never had to do that...however the outcome, having NOT shot that person may have made you feel worse.

What if the guy you had to shoot killed or raped your daughter or son.....tied you to a chair and made you watch etc. All because you had no way to defend yourself from them. That would make me feel much worse than having shot that piece of trash. In fact I would have been happy that the rest of the world and their wives and children never had to worry about that jerk-off again.

It's always dynamic, but everyone deserves these rights unless they use the weapon in an irresponsible manner such as murder. Defense of you and your family.......I would never judge a man for this.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Posted before, but I'll post it again (I just love the quote that much):

Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is always unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it is always vanquished. Of all the so-called 'natural human rights' that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. ~ Robert A. Heinlein

Found this one by Heinlein too "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him". Maybe this guy was on to something LoL
edit on 5-1-2013 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 


It's a miracle that we've kept our rights intact so long when you look at the super high intelligence level and the arguments the Anti's keep putting up.


Keep up the good work guys.


See you have a lose - lose situation.

1. You never gain ground in your fight and I keep all my firearms and you sulk off pouting - me win / you lose

2. You succeed in legally taking my rights and I keep my firearms anyway, refuse to turn them in, create havoc when they try to take them, start another civil war and end up with a better .gov. me win / you lose

Either way is fine with me........

What's not going to happen is they make some unconstitutional law and I march down and turn over / register my firearms.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FyreByrd
reply to post by sconner755
 


Can you even comprehend the question I posed?

Where do my rights end? (you just blew off all my rights - my whole point of view with your arrogant reply and that is the very definition of a narcissictic attitude)

Where do your rights begin?




WTF are you talking about?

You have no right to live in any blah blah blah world. You certainly don't have the right to live in a gun free world.

Just because you want something doesn't make it a "right."



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
The United States of America is a constitutional republic which is similar to a democracy simply because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, our representatives swear an oath office and are required to work within the framework of our constitution. Even if 99% of Americans want something that goes against constitutional rights the constitution still protects the 1%..That is the way it is supposed to work (now) whether it will in the future remains to be seen..

Our American founders (the old white guys with the funny hairdos) did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as any monarchy.

The old men were highly educated or deep thinking people for their time and were experienced in defending themselves against perceived tyranny...They recognized the potential 'that absolute power breeds corruption absolutely'. They believed the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of any government and the masses 'popularity be damned'. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an "vigilante majority” developing within the American People.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

A true democracy is a dangerous form of government simply because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. Ask Native Americans or African-Americans if a majority population can become corrupt and repressive. If they know their own racial history in this country they will cling to the Constitution as we all should IMO for I have not seen something with a better form and intent of governance.




The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams




Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington


Just another old man with funny hair and bad teeth.....

There is a procedure for Amending the Constitution which I posted in another thread; anything else that someone tries to do is a breech to their oath of office and is in direct violation of the Constitution.
That will not stop some from trying to violate because with their own belief that they know better and with your new position in the back of the bus (if they win) they truly do believe they would create a better world..For thmselves.


edit on 5-1-2013 by 727Sky because: spelling



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 


you assume that the three.... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are individual qualities, but they are not. They are one quality, freedom to be specific, none of which would be possible had the Founding Fathers been stripped of their guns. So important was the ammendment that it was inserted second, well ahead of our constitutional protections from tyranny in government. Notice that the first ammendment gives us right to redress, and the second gives us the means to aquire it.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   
What happens when someone gets killed and no gun was ever used?




Man kills grandmother over what to watch on TV

A 25-year-old New York man was arrested Friday after he told police that he killed his grandmother following a debate over what to watch on TV.

Clarence Newcomb, 25, called 911 at 4:35 a.m. Friday. Arriving at the home in Kings Park, on Long Island, where the two have lived for years, police found 82-year-old Kathleen Newcomb lying dead in the living room.

Clarence Newcomb told police that he physically assaulted her and did not use a weapon.



Guns don't kill people, TV shows kill people





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join