Guns violate our inalienable rights, rather than protect them, page 4


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times


reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 04:07 AM 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".


reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 04:16 AM by tgidkp
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!!



reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 09:17 AM by RedmoonMWC
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:



reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 03:38 PM 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?


reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 05:02 PM by Honor93
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.


reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 07:03 PM by Xterrain
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.



reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 07:35 PM by kcabmi
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.


reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 08:45 PM by mwood
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.


reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 08:50 PM by sconner755
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."


reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 08:52 PM by 727Sky
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



reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 08:55 PM by onthedownlow
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.


reply posted on 6-1-2013 @ 12:45 AM by Alxandro
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
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



UN Proposes Tax On Americans for 3rd world countries
  Posted 18 days ago with 28 member flags
Armed bystander stops stabbing outside school
  Posted 12 days ago with 27 member flags
" Climate Change Is Not A Hoax", says Obama!!??
  Posted 4 days ago with 21 member flags
Former Arizona Sheriff Mack, ‘Gun Control Against the Law’
  Posted 13 days ago with 12 member flags
Limiting Freedom & It\'s Effects On Society
  Posted 17 days ago with 11 member flags