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.
Strict gun laws wouldn't have prevented these shootings. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. And there are shootings and killings there every day.
Chicago has to operate within the framework of the broader United States. One merely has to cross the border into a state with more lenient gun laws (such as, say, Indiana) in order to purchase a gun if they were unable to do so within the city of Chicago itself.
The right to own a gun does not exist universally in all nations. In fact, it doesn't exist in most nations. Therefore, it is a right we have given ourselves, and thus we could remove it ourselves if we wanted to.
The absolute right of private property ownership is a condition of existence, not a gift from government.
The absolute right of self-ownership is a condition of existence, not a gift from government.
The absolute right of self-defense is a condition of existence, not a gift from government.
The absolute right to keep and bear arms is the natural, logical extension of the above listed absolute natural rights, thus is also a condition of existence, not a gift from government.
We gave ourselves nothing. We explicitly told government what of ours that we possess as a condition of our existence they are not allowed to take away or have power over. Existence itself gave us our rights, not government.
The reason there are so many mass shootings in the USA is because it's so easy to get a gun here. That's a fact, not a political opinion.
It's easy for these mentally ill people to get a gun. Really easy.
No other developed country has this problem with mass shootings.
Thou fool. The gun is but an inanimate object. It has no emotion and cannot take any action on its own. It’s the human that perpetrates the violence. Address the human problem.
Chicago has to operate within the framework of the broader United States. One merely has to cross the border into a state with more lenient gun laws (such as, say, Indiana) in order to purchase a gun if they were unable to do so within the city of Chicago itself.
Did you know that the city of Berkeley, CA passed a law making it illegal to detonate a nuclear device within the city limits?
The absolute right of private property ownership is a condition of existence, not a gift from government.
The absolute right of self-ownership is a condition of existence, not a gift from government.
The absolute right of self-defense is a condition of existence, not a gift from government.
The absolute right to keep and bear arms is the natural, logical extension of the above listed absolute natural rights, thus is also a condition of existence, not a gift from government.
We gave ourselves nothing. We explicitly told government what of ours that we possess as a condition of our existence they are not allowed to take away or have power over. Existence itself gave us our rights, not government.
The only people who believe the rights you mentioned are absolute rights are some philosophers who thought it seemed like a good idea. That is, they are a human idea.
If the right to keep and bear arms was such an absolute right, most, if not all, nations would have that right. But since most don't have that right, it is clearly not an absolute right.
The right to own a gun does not exist universally in all nations. In fact, it doesn't exist in most nations. Therefore, it is a right we have given ourselves, and thus we could remove it ourselves if we wanted to.
All rights come from thin air. The only guarantees in life are death and taxes.
If you want to remove gun rights, then let’s also remove voting without ID rights and birthright citizenship rights.
The only people who believe the rights you mentioned are absolute rights are some philosophers who thought it seemed like a good idea. That is, they are a human idea.
If the right to keep and bear arms was such an absolute right, most, if not all, nations would have that right. But since most don't have that right, it is clearly not an absolute right.
That most governments subjugate and oppress their citizens does not negate the fact that your negative rights are a condition of existence, and all government can do (and do quite often) is harm/abridge/violate those rights.
Just because you are fine ceding all your individualism and natural rights to government doesn't mean I have to be. And just because other countries have more brazen and honest tyranny does not mean I welcome our slightly lesser version of tyranny.
Do not confuse what governments allow with what existence intended. Governments are a cancer on the body that is the human population.
That most governments subjugate and oppress their citizens does not negate the fact that your negative rights are a condition of existence, and all government can do (and do quite often) is harm/abridge/violate those rights.
Just because you are fine ceding all your individualism and natural rights to government doesn't mean I have to be. And just because other countries have more brazen and honest tyranny does not mean I welcome our slightly lesser version of tyranny.
Do not confuse what governments allow with what existence intended. Governments are a cancer on the body that is the human population.
Everything you just said is a human idea. Who are you to decide "what existence intended?"
All you've done is find some philosophical mumbo-jumbo you think justifies your hatred of government. And then you pretend to yourself that it's some sort of Divine Edict so you can make yourself sound Holier Than Thou. But it's really all just so much hot air.
All rights are rights we give ourselves. Deal with it. We've given ourselves the right to let women vote. And we've taken away the right to own slaves. No reason we can't add or take away any other rights, gun ownership included.
Last edited by James Bond 007; 05-24-2022 at 10:32 PM..
First thing that should be done is not treat these mass killing like a mystery. These "shooters: are mass murderers, cowards, disturbed among other things. These KILLERS need to tagged as MURDERERS using their name. HIstory needs to make sure it's noted they were a MASS MURDERING POS SCUM, not a 'shooter'. Calling them 'the shooter' makes it seem like they're playing Call of Duty or something. They are KILLERS who committed a horrific COWARDLY CRIME. Use their name in context-CRIMINAL SCUM.
Also this is the second KILLER who seems to have settled on secondary targets with both apparently wanting to shoot up their graduation ceremonies. End of the year is when school officials need to be on alert. Wether it's POS psycho or gang banger the end of year means the last chance for a killer to easily find their target and officials should know this.
That being said Yes. Why?
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.
