Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This has been asked over and over since Parkland. Liberals are not interested in it. Just watching the Town Hall on CNN last night made that crystal clear.
Well duh.
You're more interested in having the possibility of shootouts because of your view that it's your right to "self-defense".. when you wouldn't need such a thing if you just get rid of all weapons in society.
Other's think there's no need for weapons in society.
I always find the defend against tyrannical government defense silly.
If the fed's were to go crazy, you'd be using your weapons to fight against drones, tanks, helicopters, missiles, etc.. Not sure how that'll end but I think it's pretty obvious.
Lots people would agree with you.
Once upon a time, against the most powerful empire the world had seen, some silly people said:
"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...."
Wow, really? Are you that blind? They interview crying "white" moms and dads after the massacre but I guess that doesn't fit your agenda. Talk about a gross, vile, and disgusting thing to say.
Were they on CNN's Town Hall meeting crying and screaming about Muslim ban?
I have been an avid reader of CNN. How could I miss that? I must be blind!
Once upon a time, against the most powerful empire the world had seen, some silly people said:
"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...."
What a bunch of morons they were!
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can exist without weapons. Crazy thought I know.
Then again, are you saying your defense against a tyrannical government is a farce practically speaking?
So how does the right to life and right to bear arms work together?
The right to keep and bear arms extends from the right to self-defense, and the right of self-defense extends from the right of ownership of self (my life, my rights). Foundation natural rights.
You are creating an unspoken strawman argument - that the right to keep and bar arms confers a right or privilege to initiate force against others or otherwise violate the Non-Aggression Principle. It does not. No natural, individual right confers the right/privilege to initiate force against others.
Nobody has the right to initiate force against others, and the initiation of force is a voluntary surrender of your own natural rights. What keeping and bearing arms does, when exercised properly, is give those who would have their rights violated the ability to defend against an aggressor, up to and including ending their life, given that by initiation of force, they surrendered their rights up to and including their own life.
My weapons will never be used by me to initiate force against another person. I do not have the right to initiate force against others. Nobody does. That said, if someone seeks to violate my rights, initiate force against me, or otherwise harm me by violating the Non-Aggression Principle, my weapons will be employed to defend my rights to life, liberty and property, up to and including taking the life of the aggressor that they freely surrendered when they chose to initiate force against me.
And the point of the 2nd Amendment is that government, contrary to what they think and act like, does not have the right to initiate force against the citizen, and the citizens have the natural, individual right to defend against such aggression. It is THE bulwark against tyranny, the rifle behind every blade of grass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by man4857
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can exist without weapons. Crazy thought I know.
And if one person who seeks to initiate force against your life, liberty and/or property is armed with a weapon, your defense of your life, liberty and/or property is what again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by man4857
Then again, are you saying your defense against a tyrannical government is a farce practically speaking?
100+ million armed citizens defending their homes, neighborhoods and individual rights is a pretty solid defense against maybe 1.5 million professional infantry (all the branches theoretical total of active duty who actually know one end of a weapon from another, and that number is probably high). No farce. Ask the Afghani mujahadeen. Small arms and good marksmanship can accomplish a great deal against a technologically and even numerically superior force. The armed citizen vastly outnumbers our professional military, even if being behind on the technology front.
Last edited by Volobjectitarian; 02-22-2018 at 11:48 AM..
Tell me why we don't see crying white moms on TV after each terrorist massacre?
The media has the agenda to disarm the populace. To pretend they don't is gross, vile and disgusting to say the least.
But we do.
I don't know what you are watching?
Overseas they show the chaos, the tears, the injured, the ruin.
Here -- we spend weeks talking about the victims, allowing their families to tell us about them.
Her message to blaming the media is misguided, she didn't help her cause with that shrill speech. How about the NRA owning up to taking some responsibility rather than point fingers, I didn't hear a solution just complaining.
The media is not the problem, its easy access to guns by mentally ill people.
Also the court has ruled over and over again that the government has no obligation to protect you.
That's your opinion. You can be happy without weapons. If self-defense is the only reason, assuming we get crime down to almost none, then your argument and necessity for "self-defense" disappears and so does the 2nd amendment.
A court issues an "opinion". Doesn't mean that's the way it has to be. Otherwise, we wouldn't politicize the court no?
Why are the right wingers so up and arms about Roe v. Wade but not 2nd amendment rulings? It's the court ruling, and that's how it is right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
