posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:36 AM
Originally posted by SpookyVince
Originally posted by twitchy
Originally posted by SpookyVince
I can't see how you would have less liberty and freedom if guns were simply banned.
If you really can't see the irony in that statement, then how can you see the point we're trying to make at all?
No irony there.
Your liberty ends where mine starts. By removing guns from people, all the people have the same liberty. Do not tell me it is to protect yourself.
Protect yourself against who or what?
If people feel so much the urge to shoot at anything that moves in their garden, it is because they expect anyone or anything out there to be armed as
well. If the burglar who's attempting at your house feels so much the need to shoot at you, it is because they expect you to shoot at them too.
It is like in the cold war with the nukes. It is a balance of fears. How negative is this?
Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by SpookyVince
One cannot "take back" without being armed. People see this for what it is. A power grab, by "executive" decision or actions, or whatever other word
you want to place after it.
So you bluntly dare to declare that people in the US do not accept their government's decisions, nor rules for the matter. You don't want "executive"
So why the hell do you still elect anyone to the head of your country?
So why do you need any rules at all???
So why do you defend your laws then???
You are just so contradicting everything.
Same with the (so awfully insufficient) health care, or Obamacare as it was nicknamed.
It is not about protecting your "rights". No. It is about evolving. It is about accepting that times change, that people change, and that laws
can change. Even if it has been deemed "unalienable". Intelligence is about admitting that what was yesterday, may not sill be today. That is true
even for truth itself.
The 2nd amendment has lived. It is outdated. It is unnecessary. It is time to amend it. If things were to never change, you wouldn't have a 2nd
amendment in the first place.
What is scary is how much you actually believe what you are saying.
Do you not realize how IMMORAL it is to use the monopoly on the use of force to take away somebody's inherent right to defend themselves?
You say you don't want violence, that people should EVOLVE from it. Then you should be 100% behind the idea of using IDEOLOGY and PERSUASION to
convince people not to use guns. You have absolutely no moral standing if you are telling others not to be violent while at the same time telling
them to submit to a higher power to forcefully remove their method of self-defense. It is hypocrisy at it's most blatant.
And removing guns from people doesn't equalize liberty. There is absolutely no science or statistic that can prove this, in fact all of the facts
disagree with you.
Let us define liberty
The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.
How does forcefully stripping a human being of their right to self-defense or self-preservation in ANYWAY enhancing liberty? You can't have liberty
by taking somebody away from somebody but you can certainly have it if you let that human live his or her life as long as they do not inflict damage
on another's body or property. THAT IS LIBERTY. get it straight. PLEASE.
This is the essential reason why I think it is extremely scary that you believe this stuff.
Your self-righteousness has come back to bite you in your ass.
edit on 18-1-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)