Cal-gun Fan
Member
Yes, but that was because of RACISM. Being discriminated against because of your race is not the same thing as being discriminated against because you have a misdemeanor.
ALSO, here is something a little contradictory. We have this right, however most countries do not. So, how then can it really be called a god-given right?
Agreed. People chant the "god-given" line a bit too much.exactly what I was going to bring up...
In Jesus's country of origin you cannot own a gun period.... Surely he would have granted his son those rights....
Cal-gun Fan said:ALSO, here is something a little contradictory. We have this right, however most countries do not. So, how then can it really be called a god-given right?
Well...an AK is in many ways the definition of an Assault Rifle (Don't mean to upset the term nazis, I am one myself a lot of the time). Thats exactly what it was designed for, not as a range rifle or a plinker. It was designed to kill people and throw a bunch of bulletsI hadn't planned on adding to the thread until I read two different replies calling the AK an "assault weapon." I highly doubt the guy could afford a full auto firearm, especially and AK47. We have enough trouble with antis calling them assault weapons and I assume pretty much all members here and pro 2A. So we should try to be a little more precise in our descriptions at least as this type of firearm is concerned. IMHO.
That's anti-rights trash right there. That semi auto rifle was no more designed to kill people than my sons CZ 452 Scout single shot 22 rifle was made for killing people. The select fire firearm was originally designed for military use, the semi auto version was made for civilian use.Thats exactly what it was designed for, not as a range rifle or a plinker. It was designed to kill people and throw a bunch of bullets
I prefer inherent or innate, but it is the same idea.
Not really contradictory, unusual would be a better descriptor. I guess your perspective would hinge upon whether or not you believe that the State grants rights or not. We here in America believe that some rights are innate, for those who believe otherwise; there's California.
Cal-gun Fan said:But see, really, if it is inherent or innate then it should be for all. That just seems to imply that we are not created equal as the idea goes.
Sorry-let me clarify that.You must mean "governed equal" otherwise you are using words in ways that are incorrect and tying concepts together in a muddled fashion.
Cal-gun Fan said:Sorry-let me clarify that.
Human Rights are innate rights by definition-that is not disputable. Civil Rights are rights granted by the government by definition-and RKBA is a civil right.
No misimpression-I know that the Bill of Rights describes rights given by the Federal Government for ALL citizens. However, the idea behind inherent rights is that they are endowed upon all human beings simply for being human. Now, judging by the fact that most of the free world (un-oppressed? For lack of a better word) does not have a similar right, I believe that it is unfair to call it a god-given right.That explains it. You are under the misapprehension that the BoR describes rights granted by the State. That is incorrect.
Cal-gun Fan said:No misimpression-I know that the Bill of Rights describes rights given by the Federal Government for ALL citizens.
Well, to protect the rights of the people from infringement by the government.No, that is incorrect.
, and such, I would have to believe he could be definately far more anti rights than pro rights. Too bad.infatuated with firearms,
Cal-gun Fan said:Well, to protect the rights of the people from infringement by the government.
I assure you, I am FAR from an anti. However, I try to have an open mind on gun-issues and political issues. I would think that that is what a forum called The High Road is about.SuperNaut, I believe you nailed it, especially with the language he has been using, , and such, I would have to believe he could be definately far more anti rights than pro rights. Too bad.
Have a nice night, everyone.
Cal-gun Fan said:I take issue when people start thinking they are entitled to these rights necessarily. The 2nd amendment was intended for a somewhat different purpose originally.
But are they inherent just because we say they are inherent? That is the question!Yep, our innate human rights. People and their attendant inherent rights existed before government, government is just a system. A social machine that we the people created and control. It grants nothing; the government serves at the behest of the people.
Not necessarily incorrect. This is where understanding the views of the anti's comes into the equation. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is essentially, so that people can defend themselves, whether that be from infringement of their rights, someone intent on causing them bodily harm, or from an invading nation. The antis argue that it does NOT protect people owning fully automatic weapons, having silencers, and all these fun gadgets for shooting at the range and simply enjoying our hobby.Incorrect again.
Cal-gun Fan said:But are they inherent just because we say they are inherent? That is the question!
Cal-gun Fan said:The antis argue that it does NOT protect people owning fully automatic weapons, having silencers, and all these fun gadgets for shooting at the range and simply enjoying our hobby.
Alright, I agree. For the citizens of the United States of America, these rights are unalienable and irrefutable. The issue this stemmed from is the labeling of them as "God-Given Rights", which is what I take issue with.They cannot be anything else.
The right to self-ownership and self-determination demands that these inherent rights are also able to be defended. These rights exist independent of any government and certainly independent of any sophistic pretenses.