Is there a Right to own a gun; Ethics of Gun Ownership

No, they ask you many questions, there is this new thing called "fingerprints" most of us have them on file with various Government Agencies.

Most People do not leave the U.S. without a Passport.
That would be illogical.

 

And most people do not carry concealed without a CCW. Most people obey the law

 

So who is arguing against ?
I have always obeyed the Laws regarding firearms.

 

There is no disconnect.

 

Then all things bright and beautiful, all things right with the World.

 

For those who originally made it out of African forced labour on stolen native-American land, supplemented with plenty of profiteering abroad, aye.

 

I was beinbg ironical - you, of course, have no objections to total massacre.

 

The slave trade was made possible by those in the nation of Africa having no objection to selling their friends, relatives, and neighbors to the highest bidder due to simple, basic greed. They regarded profiteering and capitalism as more important than their own children.

As to the matter of stolen land, there is no evidence that those who occupied it previously did not steal it originally.

 

Slavery in Africa was bad enough, but it was hugely superior to the American racist filth, and one thing you can be sure of about the land was it didn't belong to those who brought in enough disease to kill off its owners or enough fire-power to murder those who survived, As you very well know.

 

Actually you're being obtuse. To what total massacre do you refer?

 

Indeed it is so - outrageous justification for such massacres and embelihsed with relavant sidenotes as "at least we have more TV's than you do!"

 

I must have been making a mistake - Genghiz Khan, I now realise, was coming round with reindeer to give merry gifts, a pacifist. American rightists are very, very weird.

 

... and the other side.

 

Don't want to seem sweeping!

 

Knowing who Genghis Khan is doesn't mean that I support massacre. You make leaps of "logic" I find mildly amusing.

 

A lesson I need to learn myself, someday.

 

What's your point? Or did you ever have one? Of course, we'll all be waiting for you to tell us how that has anything to do with the ethics of gun ownership.

 

You must ask permission to enter the country even if that is your right. The same applies to owning a gun. And ask nicely. LOL

 

"You have a right to self-defense. You don't have a right to possess the means to defend yourself." With all due respect, there is absolutely a disconnect there.

 

Oh, please. Spare me.

 

What puts a roof over your head and food on your plate?

 

Yes. There is a disconnect, but it is not from my side of the dialogue.

 

I told you before. I might go through the motions as a courtesy to the government, but if I want to leave, I'll do so regardless of whether they like it or not. The United States Supreme Court has ruled you have a Right to travel so, again, if you have to ask permission, you do not have the right.

Never thought about the travel angle. Granted, with many of these guys that cannot comprehend the law, you have a point. It's not true with me. You may notice that some uneducated people on the right poke fun at the patriots who spent the 70s, 80s, 90s, and on into the early 2000s trying to fight for Liberty and Freedoms be it fighting the illegally ratified 14th and 16th Amendments, protecting the Right to travel, fighting against the implementation of National ID, fighting One World Government... and yes, even fighting against gun control.

Those who don't have a clue (as one of the robotic posters accuses the right of) continue to make specious arguments, but many on the right ARE traveling down the same road as you. Both of you are going to end up at the same destination.

Either your unalienable Rights are bestowed upon you by a Creator OR they are granted by government. You cannot have it both ways and if I have a RIGHT to do something, I'll be damned if I ask the government for permission to do it. This doesn't apply to just gun control, it applies to every aspect of life.

The courts ruled that an inalienable right can be alienated provided you give consent. That is NOT the case with an unalienable Right and NO COURT IN THE U.S. has ever ruled that you can willingly consent to forfeiting an unalienable Right, only the inalienable ones.

The process has been is to get the American people to willingly concede a right here and another there - accept a license for this and a permit for that. And, when it serves the right, they are all about licenses, permits, permission, etc. regardless of what the founders intended. For that reason, they imply that my logic is flawed while they are taking a giant dump on their own Liberties. Give it time Vegas giants. Those who are pretending that they have a monopoly on understanding and are busting my chops will be walking hand in hand with you... sitting around the campfire singing Kum Bah Yah.

My advice to you is to use your time chiding those who are only consistent with inconsistency. I support the principle of unalienable Rights even when it costs me on an issue here or there...

 

Lets be clear.
You will stand in line.
You will present your passport that you filed for in advance or
you will answer every question asked of you and present your fingerprints for examination.
You will NOT just walk into this country.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS

 

Okay, enlighten me. Seriously; I'm trying to be as open and honest as I can be here and I encourage you to do the same.

You say there is a right to self-defense. I agree with you. You do NOT agree that this right thus entitles you to be able to access the most effective self-defense options available. I see those two viewpoints as contradictory. Please elaborate on how I am wrong on this?