Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Glock22, Jun 27, 2007.
Well, Beatnik, not to quibble, but we don't have a law that says we have a right to own guns; we have an enumeration of our God-given right to keep and bear arms, and these rights transcend earthly authority (including laws). It all goes back to our Natural Rights (Life, Liberty, Property/Pursuit of Happiness) as the founders stated.
csbyte is kind of an anti
not being in lock step is cool, not being willing to debate stinks.
They're some here that are trying to split the Republican vote so as Osama or the Hildabeast gets in. Some, not all of the Ron Paul supporters are pretty obvious in their little plan. Some of them are right from the DUmp. One of them is from Illinois and I haven't figured out his DU name yet. They get a high post count in a short time frame. Post mostly in L&P. No mention of owning any guns.
I'm a member of Conservative Underground as Tucker13 and the DU'ers know about that site. I'm also a member of DU , but can't tell my name there. I do to them what they're trying to do here.
Plenty of people trying to enact a nationwide ban on these:
Do you deny that?
I have way more posts on Democratic Underground than I do on THR. I'm not a repub, and I wouldn't be considered a conservative. Does that make me a troll?
There are a LOT of pro-gun DU'ers. The idea that rank-and-file Dems are uniformly anti-gun is Bradyite BS. The gun-control lobby wants people to think that gun rights are only a narrow "right wing" issue; they're not.
For the Children
I own my firearms for the children.
I am certain most THR devotees (pro2A anyway) have seen this. Being new to THR, please forgive me if this is unnecessary, but since the term "the Children" came up I couldn't resist since one of the reasons I do what I do is for Little Eli:
The 2nd amendment was included to ensure we the people could respond to a tyrannical government. The broad application of the benefits of the 2nd amendment are obvious. I can not see why antis constantly dwell on their limited scope of the clause. Their very existence is supported by the document.
I will never understand.
I continually see this claim from folks like you. Yes there are GOP antis, and I do what I can to ensure they know my concerns. If what you claim is true, why are not more of you pro2A dems in office? The dems you have leading your cause most certainly do not share your pro2A point of view.
Maybe instead of hammering on the pro2A GOP or other pro2A types you ought to straighten out your own. Some of that "common ground" I keep hearing about but never see.
I am happy you pro2A dems do exist. Life certainly would get boring. It would be nice to focus on something else that we disagree on besides our civil rights.
Titan6, I enjoyed your post #84. The only problem I have with this post (and your initial one in this thread) is accusing someone of being a Troll immediately if they post something that runs against the grain of the forum. I actually like to hear many people's ideas and the reasons for them. It shouldn't be any different if you talk to someone on the street. You label them Trolls or worse if they say something you disagree with in person? Probably not.....
You labeled me a Troll once. It was probably when the Zumbo discussion was popular. I am certainly not a Troll or Fudd. But everyone has their opinion. These terms really bother me.
Jwarren: Excellent post #91. The framers of our Constitution were really amazing people. To think most of them were in the 30's and to be so well educated and literate. George Washington was an old guy, something like 40 when the revolution began.
Art: As usual, you phrased it well in #92. New readers to this thread should read page one and then skip to page 4.
I know it is so often said on this forum, but I'm sure the Jews and other persecuted people in Germany during the 1930's and early 1940's never thought that gun registration would lead to confiscation and then eventually to the gas chambers. Yes, this is an extreme case, but it is true and we need to maintain our rights and freedoms from being significantly watered down by new legislation. If the government evolves into something that it was not intended to, the framers of our Constitution wanted people to be able to rebel and firearm ownership is central to that right. I would hope that armed rebellion is not the first choice and that most people would try to affect change legislatively. The USA is really a wonderful country to be organized in a way that protects people from government. The Second Amendment is part of the protection and our right. We the People...
I don't mind emotional arguments. Some people just believe that guns should be illegal. They need to be educated to become better informed. There have always been people who prefer socialism or facism to the capitalistic form of government we have. It is part of what makes the USA great; the diverse ideas voiced.
eh, not so much. it's about personal choice, freedom, and the lack of a tyrannical government
''If this election is about a single issue it is about the war on terror'' - Rudy
If you start ranting about "tyrannical government" to antis, you have lost not only the battle, but the war. This may be a shocker but I would guess that less than .5% of Americans would list "fear of tyranny by our government as a concern."
You're right, I stand corrected. Indeed, the important part is that we are naturally endowed with this right, not that the law grants it to us.
I think it's important to point out that it is law, though, and that law is being broken. One can deny the existence of the creator, and one can deny the notion of natural rights. But the one thing I really hope we'd agree on with antis is that we need a functioning system of laws in order for society to work.
What I'm coming to realize is that antis - and this guy is a perfect example - actually don't much care for law. It's usually possible to paint them into a corner where they don't recognize the 2nd Amendment as law - and as stated, if you ignore one law, the others don't mean much either.
You do understand the the appeal to divine authority is fundamentally not rational, right?
But I have read them. One question you may want to consider is why do people who are in favor of a strict, literal interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to some things (Freedom of Speech) get a dose of the "Let's consider other sources" when it comes to other things (the Second Amendment)?
The Declaration of Independence is a glorious statement of principle, not the law of the land. It contains discrepancies, one of which is the statement "that all men are created equal." Someone of the time could have talked to any one of those "3/5ths" of a person for an alternative point of view.
"there are people like you that don't know the difference between a God-given right"
You're confusing religion with the rule of law and governments instituted by men.
"Rights are something that we are entitled to simply by drawing breath"
Rights are nothing more than things agreed upon by a group of people. In some countries free health care is considered a Right. In this country that isn't the case.
"confiscation has always led to tyranny or genocide or both"
The last time I checked Great Britain wasn't a hot bed of either.
"Who is the militia? YOU ARE."
What about the "well regulated" part? Often, as now, the ignored part of the amendment. Unless you're a member of the National Guard your regulation might consist of laws to restrict what firearms you may possess.
"Game, set, and match."
It provides us the opportunity to demonstrate to undecided folks that pro-2A citizen like us are just like them and the people they know and trust. In spite of being demonized by gun-prohibitionists as somehow different and evil (or at least foolish or selfish) in our thinking we're actually responsible and rational people. We understand that projecting fears onto an inanimate object, or projecting them onto those who don't fear the inanimate object, is not reasonable, rational or responsible. We're just like the vast majority of folks every day that don't wake up and ram our cars into school buses, or crash into businesses or drive off of bridges or any number of other aberrant behaviors. Reasonable people don't think any other object somehow magically takes control of the people near it, but gun-prohibitionists act like a firearm can for some reason. Just by being here and carrying out reasonable civil debates on firearms we put the lie to such foolishness.
It's quite sad how much you distrust your fellow citizens because they are, after all, the people that elect legislators at all levels of government.
What's this appeal to belief? Something is either logical, or it is not. You may be right about the existence of G-d (and I might share your belief), but that doesn't have anything to do with logic.
That's not a defect in the Declaration; it's simply an example of people stating a correct principle and then failing to uphold it.
Not true: the right to self and property are absolute. If everyone on earth, with the exception of only one person, say different, they're all wrong.
You do know that "well regulated" means "well trained," and has nothing to do with legislative restrictions, right? The word "regulation" has come to mean something different today than it meant when the Declaration was written.
"God-given right" is a meaningful concept even if one disputes the existence of God. It simply means: a right which transcends human authority, and therefore cannot be taken away by any human agency. It's basically a synonym for "inalienable."
It is interesting to me that people who purport to be rational strive so hard to project irrationality onto their opponents. And then pat themselves on the back for the possession of such a mighty intellect that they can defeat a silly argument they generated!
Have you actually listened to any antis, or do you just listen to what pro-gun folks say that antis say?
Separate names with a comma.