gun-control logic applied in auto-reverse
- Thread starter dnewton3
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: surfstar
As Jim Jeffries said in his bit
"Its called an assault rifle, not a protection rifle"
What was its designed intent again? Oh yeah, killing people en mass.
I still don't see how you guys all believe that "militia" means an individual; RE: the 2nd Amendment.
The Supreme Court decided that. Not the founding fathers.
The militia is comprised of individuals.
And the Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to self defense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
As far as weapon choice? A carbine is a good choice for many people.
Your choice of inflammatory labels (assault weapon was made up circa 1989 by anti gun hacks) to describe that weapon doesn't change the fact that the weapon is effective for defense. It's not my choice, I prefer my H&K, but it is a reasonable choice for the exercise of the right to self defense. For folks who can't handle a pistol or shotgun, the carbine is light weight, low recoil, easy to aim and a good choice for defense.
To remove that choice, through specious descriptions of a carbine rifle, by the use of inflammatory labels, removes the right of many to self defense.
I'm opposed to denying people their rights.
As Jim Jeffries said in his bit
"Its called an assault rifle, not a protection rifle"
What was its designed intent again? Oh yeah, killing people en mass.
I still don't see how you guys all believe that "militia" means an individual; RE: the 2nd Amendment.
The Supreme Court decided that. Not the founding fathers.
The militia is comprised of individuals.
And the Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to self defense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
As far as weapon choice? A carbine is a good choice for many people.
Your choice of inflammatory labels (assault weapon was made up circa 1989 by anti gun hacks) to describe that weapon doesn't change the fact that the weapon is effective for defense. It's not my choice, I prefer my H&K, but it is a reasonable choice for the exercise of the right to self defense. For folks who can't handle a pistol or shotgun, the carbine is light weight, low recoil, easy to aim and a good choice for defense.
To remove that choice, through specious descriptions of a carbine rifle, by the use of inflammatory labels, removes the right of many to self defense.
I'm opposed to denying people their rights.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
What about the fourth amendment? I don't see anyone passionately defending our right to keep the government from mass collection of our phone calls, emails, text messages and other communications. I don't even see anyone really pushing to stop the illegal seizures that are occurring across the country where people are losing assets without due process.
Funny the same people that defend any amount of gun control say if you ain't got nothin' to hide, you ain't got nothin to worry about when it concerns the government snooping on us and police departments arbitrarily taking private property.
I object just as vehemently to the trampling of our fourth amendment rights in recent years.
Are you suggesting that, because we allowed an infringement on the fourth, we should accept an infringement on the second?
Nice try at stereotyping...didn't you learn that stereotyping was wrong?
What about the fourth amendment? I don't see anyone passionately defending our right to keep the government from mass collection of our phone calls, emails, text messages and other communications. I don't even see anyone really pushing to stop the illegal seizures that are occurring across the country where people are losing assets without due process.
Funny the same people that defend any amount of gun control say if you ain't got nothin' to hide, you ain't got nothin to worry about when it concerns the government snooping on us and police departments arbitrarily taking private property.
I object just as vehemently to the trampling of our fourth amendment rights in recent years.
Are you suggesting that, because we allowed an infringement on the fourth, we should accept an infringement on the second?
Nice try at stereotyping...didn't you learn that stereotyping was wrong?
And everyone here on both sides happily acknowledges driving as a privilege. I'm going to get irate if they make us use these driverless vehicles. I'm going to get irate if they refuse to license my old cars.
There are many more rights that aren't specifically mentioned. Many. Like reproductive freedom.
I think its ridiculous that we needed amendments to the Constitution to declare that black people are free like everyone else. One that says any race can vote. Then another that women can also vote. People are dense.
There are many more rights that aren't specifically mentioned. Many. Like reproductive freedom.
I think its ridiculous that we needed amendments to the Constitution to declare that black people are free like everyone else. One that says any race can vote. Then another that women can also vote. People are dense.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The "rights" listed in the constitution are all man-made laws. The word "right" is used through out the constitution. They are not chiseled in stone as the message to the world, and they are only man controlled.
Do note that the authors wrote specifically that they hesitated to allow a Bill of Rights because they believed the rights were inherent to men, and not granted by the state. The Federalist Papers are a great read.
The "rights" listed in the constitution are all man-made laws. The word "right" is used through out the constitution. They are not chiseled in stone as the message to the world, and they are only man controlled.
Do note that the authors wrote specifically that they hesitated to allow a Bill of Rights because they believed the rights were inherent to men, and not granted by the state. The Federalist Papers are a great read.
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Originally Posted By: Nyati
Why is a gun evil but not a car? They are both inanimate objects.
Very simple to many. Primary purpose of gun is to kill while vehicle primary purpose it transport you to wherever safely.....
Perhaps you missed one of my earlier posts.
I only have 2 firearms that are used for hunting purposes. The rest are just plinkers.
Originally Posted By: Nyati
Why is a gun evil but not a car? They are both inanimate objects.
Very simple to many. Primary purpose of gun is to kill while vehicle primary purpose it transport you to wherever safely.....
Perhaps you missed one of my earlier posts.
I only have 2 firearms that are used for hunting purposes. The rest are just plinkers.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
The rest are just plinkers.
Quit killing targets.
I remember my dad used to hate when I used the man shaped targets. I told him he could have his say when he went and bought me whatever else he thought appropriate.
The rest are just plinkers.
Quit killing targets.
Originally Posted By: Nyati
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Benito
Certain rights are considered inalienable and natural.
That means certain rights are not granted to us by other men nor should they require a document. They should be self evident.
Only as interpreted by the minds of mankind standing on Earth. All of these laws and rights are all ultimately man-made, and could very well be changed sometime in the future - as you also eluded to.
But hopefully, the people that uphold these man-made laws will see fit to continue to look at them as "inalienable and natural" with solid logic.
Inalienable rights are not man made. They come from God.
OK, here's one for you. If the constitution is supposed to reflect "inalienable rights", then why was slavery ever established in this country? I would think our founding fathers, if trying to reflect those inalienable rights, would have never allowed slavery to occur since the most inalienable right of all is human freedom.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Benito
Certain rights are considered inalienable and natural.
That means certain rights are not granted to us by other men nor should they require a document. They should be self evident.
Only as interpreted by the minds of mankind standing on Earth. All of these laws and rights are all ultimately man-made, and could very well be changed sometime in the future - as you also eluded to.
But hopefully, the people that uphold these man-made laws will see fit to continue to look at them as "inalienable and natural" with solid logic.
Inalienable rights are not man made. They come from God.
OK, here's one for you. If the constitution is supposed to reflect "inalienable rights", then why was slavery ever established in this country? I would think our founding fathers, if trying to reflect those inalienable rights, would have never allowed slavery to occur since the most inalienable right of all is human freedom.
Originally Posted By: Nyati
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Originally Posted By: Nyati
Why is a gun evil but not a car? They are both inanimate objects.
Very simple to many. Primary purpose of gun is to kill while vehicle primary purpose it transport you to wherever safely.....
There are 200 million+ guns in the US alone. Most of them must be defective- because there are not 200 million deaths each year. There are many many more deaths by vehicles each year. No matter what their primary purpose.
Most of those vehicle deaths are due to accidents. How many deaths were caused by purposely using a vehicle? There are some for sure, as pointed out by dnewton3 in the original post. Almost anything in the world can be used as a weapon to kill people, it's just a matter of how convenient it is to obtain and use.
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Originally Posted By: Nyati
Why is a gun evil but not a car? They are both inanimate objects.
Very simple to many. Primary purpose of gun is to kill while vehicle primary purpose it transport you to wherever safely.....
There are 200 million+ guns in the US alone. Most of them must be defective- because there are not 200 million deaths each year. There are many many more deaths by vehicles each year. No matter what their primary purpose.
Most of those vehicle deaths are due to accidents. How many deaths were caused by purposely using a vehicle? There are some for sure, as pointed out by dnewton3 in the original post. Almost anything in the world can be used as a weapon to kill people, it's just a matter of how convenient it is to obtain and use.
Originally Posted By: Benito
This "inanimate object" argument is so intellectually void, I have to use this smily:
So a gun is an inanimate object. And people blame guns. Now what? What is your point?
Get over this idea that people are blaming guns and not people. Of course people are to blame. The point is that some "inanimate objects" are more deadly than others.
What's sad though is major gun companies have been sued because their gun was used by some lunatic to kill people with. I find it quite disturbing that this is even allowed to happen.
If someone picks up a Louisville Slugger baseball bat and kills someone with it, should they be able to sue the Louisville Slugger company?
This "inanimate object" argument is so intellectually void, I have to use this smily:
So a gun is an inanimate object. And people blame guns. Now what? What is your point?
Get over this idea that people are blaming guns and not people. Of course people are to blame. The point is that some "inanimate objects" are more deadly than others.
What's sad though is major gun companies have been sued because their gun was used by some lunatic to kill people with. I find it quite disturbing that this is even allowed to happen.
If someone picks up a Louisville Slugger baseball bat and kills someone with it, should they be able to sue the Louisville Slugger company?
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I think its ridiculous that we needed amendments to the Constitution to declare that black people are free like everyone else. One that says any race can vote. Then another that women can also vote.
That because those "inalienable rights" were somehow left out of the original Bill of Rights for some reason - apparently shortsightedness by the founding fathers at that time.
I think its ridiculous that we needed amendments to the Constitution to declare that black people are free like everyone else. One that says any race can vote. Then another that women can also vote.
That because those "inalienable rights" were somehow left out of the original Bill of Rights for some reason - apparently shortsightedness by the founding fathers at that time.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I think its ridiculous that we needed amendments to the Constitution to declare that black people are free like everyone else. One that says any race can vote. Then another that women can also vote.
That because those "inalienable rights" were somehow left out of the original Bill of Rights for some reason - apparently shortsightedness by the founding fathers at that time.
The Dred Scott decision by the SCOTUS was the problem.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I think its ridiculous that we needed amendments to the Constitution to declare that black people are free like everyone else. One that says any race can vote. Then another that women can also vote.
That because those "inalienable rights" were somehow left out of the original Bill of Rights for some reason - apparently shortsightedness by the founding fathers at that time.
The Dred Scott decision by the SCOTUS was the problem.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Nyati
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Originally Posted By: Nyati
Why is a gun evil but not a car? They are both inanimate objects.
Very simple to many. Primary purpose of gun is to kill while vehicle primary purpose it transport you to wherever safely.....
There are 200 million+ guns in the US alone. Most of them must be defective- because there are not 200 million deaths each year. There are many many more deaths by vehicles each year. No matter what their primary purpose.
Most of those vehicle deaths are due to accidents. How many deaths were caused by purposely using a vehicle? There are some for sure, as pointed out by dnewton3 in the original post. Almost anything in the world can be used as a weapon to kill people, it's just a matter of how convenient it is to obtain and use.
As if we need another example, consider this from the weekend:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/26/wom...r/?intcmp=hpbt3
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/us/oklahoma-car-into-crowd/index.html
This was no accident; it was intentional by all accounts.
4 dead; 46 (or so) seriously hurt. How many victims? FORTY-SIX hurt by one person; and four dead.
With a car! Not a pistol, nor an "assault rifle", but a vehicle.
Shhhhhhh ... if you listen closely, you can hear exactly no one blame the automobile industry for making the car, or call for cars to be banned ....
But then this also happens over the weekend:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/26/eld.../?intcmp=hplnws
There were local demonstrations for gun control. I actually interjected myself into one conversation locally; asking why they felt that way and what they thought of the OSU event. Not surprisingly, they had no clear logical answer and were stumped and shocked about the OSU tragedy.
Originally Posted By: Nyati
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Originally Posted By: Nyati
Why is a gun evil but not a car? They are both inanimate objects.
Very simple to many. Primary purpose of gun is to kill while vehicle primary purpose it transport you to wherever safely.....
There are 200 million+ guns in the US alone. Most of them must be defective- because there are not 200 million deaths each year. There are many many more deaths by vehicles each year. No matter what their primary purpose.
Most of those vehicle deaths are due to accidents. How many deaths were caused by purposely using a vehicle? There are some for sure, as pointed out by dnewton3 in the original post. Almost anything in the world can be used as a weapon to kill people, it's just a matter of how convenient it is to obtain and use.
As if we need another example, consider this from the weekend:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/26/wom...r/?intcmp=hpbt3
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/us/oklahoma-car-into-crowd/index.html
This was no accident; it was intentional by all accounts.
4 dead; 46 (or so) seriously hurt. How many victims? FORTY-SIX hurt by one person; and four dead.
With a car! Not a pistol, nor an "assault rifle", but a vehicle.
Shhhhhhh ... if you listen closely, you can hear exactly no one blame the automobile industry for making the car, or call for cars to be banned ....
But then this also happens over the weekend:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/26/eld.../?intcmp=hplnws
There were local demonstrations for gun control. I actually interjected myself into one conversation locally; asking why they felt that way and what they thought of the OSU event. Not surprisingly, they had no clear logical answer and were stumped and shocked about the OSU tragedy.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
