An anti told me I don't have any rights.

[sixgun_symphony]

The only rights that exist are the ones that a person can take and keep.

If it were otherwise, then the 2nd Amendment would not be necessary.

The weakness of the Constitution is that Liberal judges can "interpret" anything they want. The 9th Circuit proved just that.

Thus we need to get more honorable judges on the bench.

 

[Diesle]

Is that the (MM) Michael Moore forum...?

What a bag of crap that dude is.

Diesle

 

[Rebeldon]

The belief that only the government, through its agents, has the right to do legal violence, is pure statism. For any government to infringe on the right of the electorate to keep and bear arms is to do violence upon their liberty. If the people are disarmed, they are relagated as subjects, and not regarded as citizens. Politicians who desire to disarm the people have the desire to rule, not govern.

 

[G-Raptor]

Ignoring all the rational arguments, it all comes down to a simple reality - you only have the rights that you can defend.

The next time an "anti" tells you that your don't have a right to own a gun, ask him if he's willing to personally take it away from you.

Naturally he won't be, he'll want some other guy with a gun to do it for him.

 

[Dave R]

My favorite question to anti's is...

If you are attacked by a criminal who intends to rape/kill you, do you have the right to resist, or do you just have to put up with whatever he wants to do to you?

If you have the right to resist, then what tools do you have the right to use? Fists? Feet? Teeth? Stick? Bat? Knife? Hammer? Shotgun? Handgun?

If you have the right to defend yourself, then what's the problem with having a decent tool to do it with?

And if you don't have the right to defend yourself, that kinda makes things pretty easy for the predators, doesn't it?

Making the sheep more sheep-like does not deter the wolves.

 

[sixgun_symphony]

Tool?

You mean weapon. No reason to hide that fact.

Weapons in the hands of good men are what keeps the bad men in check.

 

[andy]

What bothers me about all this is how many people think this way and their numbers seem to keep growing. Many of them are in the government.

 

[F=ma]

This guy is an intellectual amoeba, floating in space, eating, defficating.

The acknowledgement of certain rights is what separates us from the animals; the whole concept of "do unto others..." and the ability to enforce/reinforce those rights. Generally, humans know that it is wrong to kill another human, based on the concept of "rights" of another (unlike lesser animals). Self preservation is innate (God- given?) but codifying the techical details requires a concensus.

IOW life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness are innate qualities (God-given?) and, therefore, we as a nation decided to form government/set of laws to protect these basic tenets

Yes, this is a unique "invented" human concept. So is time or mathmatics....sorta. You guys could argue forever that there is no such thing as mathmatics; that although 2 plus 2 equals 4 in any intellectual plain, it is human reasoning and acknowledgement of principals that "makes it so".

As with math, sometimes you have to start with a postulate, an unprovable but self-evident fact, to build on. Will he agree that self preservation is an inalienable right? If so, you can build a case for the 2nd. If not, you might as well part ways.

Do the Chinese have the same rights as us? They should, but in reality they don't. We originally formed a gov't to protect our rights...Yet there has been a gradual, increasing usurpation of these rights that we allowed to occur. As said earlier, the 2nd has two purposes; to allow for self protection and to allow for the continuance of the country. As we want it.