Gun "Logic" , The "Right" to Bear Arms?

Strawman

Haven't seen the increase of criminals with guns here since we introduced the new gun laws in 1996

 

You basically have not seen a change only now they are still armed and citizens aren't. Good job.

 

The state IS SUPPOSED to use something called "due process" to seriously infringe or revoke the natural rights of those who maliciously...and ACTUALLY violate another's natural rights. Blanket prohibitions on...well, anything....inanimate objects, drugs, DUIs, yelling fire in a crowded theater, behaviors, etc, are "preemptive and collective", due process-less punishment levied on "potential offenders" (the citizenry) who have violated NO actual natural or legal rights of another.

It's a fine and dangerous line we walk when we permit governments unlimited authority....

 

Gun crime in the US is higher in gun free zones. Criminals don't care about the law, they'll be armed, be it legally or illegally. Criminals will naturally target unarmed places.

 

this is a strawman, having nothing at all to do with the discussion.

the second amendment protects the individuals right to keep, bear, possess, and acquire arms having nothing at all to do with any militia.

 

It is a question about civil Persons in our republic.

- - - Updated - - -

Paragraph (2) claims otherwise, especially for persons unconnected with militia service.

 

no it doesn't. paragraph two has no relevance to the topic of this thread, or my argument.

you remain refuted

 

You can only use force with guns? Must be why you're more likely to be rapped and assault in Australia than America.

 

Yes, it is our natural right to defend ourselves against all forms of tyranny.

 

Only in a vacuum of special pleading.

 

There's nothing illogical about calling for a constitutional amendment to be respected.. I think everyone should defend their rights, and complain when they are abused.

As of right now, people have a right to have guns, so let them.

The time when the line is often crossed however, is when people try to deny people rights in order to try to defend their second amendment.

For example when Alex Jones thought he could try to have Piers Morgan deported merely for stating his opinion about gun rights.

There's nothing unconstitutional, immoral or treasonous about campaigning for reform.. Were all the people who wanted the constitution to outlaw slavery out of line? What about those who campaigned for women having the right to vote? What about those who demanded a repeal of the alcohol prohibition amendment?

Championing reform can even be a patriotic duty.. So when people say people are out of line for doing so, they have crossed a line.

People also cross a line when they try to remove rights enshrined in the constitution while circumventing the constitution.. For example any ban on guns, or bullet limitations (what good is a militia if they've not got enough bullets) or any attempts at confiscation, while the second amendment is still there, would be way out of line.

If you want it changed, get the amendment repealed.. This requires a preponderance of support among the congress and the states.. Which is the point.. It's the safegaurd that's meant to be that way.. For this to change people have to overwhelmingly want it.. Until then, you can't infringe.

Personally, I think the amendment should stay.. I don't think its repeal and any gun laws would stop the murder problem or even lessen it.

But if anyone disagrees, they are free to campaign against the second amendment and try to have it repealed. It is their constitutional right.

Just stop violating rights that are STILL legitimately intact, like this federal government CONTINUE to do.

 

you don't know what special pleading means.

you remain refuted

 

So Red States can not be characterized in such a way as an EXAMPLE ? I never said ALL. BTW, what does route-step bias mean?

 

You are welcome to explain it. All you need is a valid argument.

 

why would I explain to you what special pleading is? you are the one moronically throwing out logical fallacy terms having no idea as to their meaning.

I've smashed your argument to pieces in 6 different threads citing US supreme court precedent. you remain refuted

 

It was more of "Shut up you're a foreigner so don't get involved."

 

The point is that many people who are UNWILLING to budge on firearms in any way would also love to see other laws amended to suit their own needs, it's hypocritical. That is NOT a straw argument, not in any way. I'm offended you would make the claim without backing it up.

Another thing, I don't care if you support the right bear to arms for the sake of saying it ... Care to give me the reasoning why it does not mean we can limit that usage or even remove the "right" ?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't argue that you believe it, what I argue is that you have not logical footing to support that belief.

 

Gun control is a States' right.

 

Really ? Too complex ? Strawman ? You honestly give yourself way too much credit. I've been in forums for over 10 years, to mention MAD as if it needed to be explained made me chuckle. Care to get back on topic and talk about ANY of the points I raised ? STRAWLADY ?

Since this is the only thing worth responding to in your weird and childish response - OK so we arm all of our teachers and so forth, in some way, we don't have to go into too much detail with that just yet. Think about the high cost and low gain potential. School shootings are a rare event. Now think about the possiblities of teachers having access to guns, a teacher snaps, be it for jealousy over a rival teacher, political reasons, the heat of the moment; though rare now created a negative outcome. Think of how little that has to happen to negate the number of school shootings that were thwarted or minimized from an armed staff. This is the problem with you, you are in a large class of knee-jerk folks who fail to see the bigger picture.

 

Depends where you live, and I've lived all over the world. In the US, no. In Denmark, no. In the Philippines, no. In the UK, definitely not. In Hong Kong, it varies.

 

How about since they were born? Do you think that slaves back in the day didn't have "the right" to their freedom? Their enslavement was encoded in law so would you maintain that they didn't have the right to be free?

 

I will assume in your weak response that you are really unable to form one against mine. This is only hardening my view that you guys are hypocrites .

 

Wouldn't your position be that those people don't have any rights? If the law doesn't "give" them any then...?

 

You're the one who brought it up in the OP. Maybe you should have taken the time to review what you are writing before you post something. Its the least 10 years of doing nothing productive would have taught you.

Whenever you're willing to bypass the adhominems and the sidetracking, so am I.

You'd believe the principal or district principal would allow someone to carry a gun on her or her property if the person at a history if violence/hostility towards other people? How exactly do you think CCW applications and training works? How many incidents do you recall of a CCW user just 'snapping' and becoming homicidal.

Pointing out the dumbest scenario you can think of is not seeing the bigger picture.

 

I'm loathe to invest any time wading through and commenting on your (purposeful, or out of ignorance) conflation of natural rights with legal rights and privileges