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

Oh! Bunkum!! Our government fears our people - especially around election time

 

What did human beings do before they succumbed/submitted to being lorded over (represented) by other human beings?
Who'd they ask if they could eat or take a crap?

(more evidence Progressives have been indoctrinated to believe government bureaucrats "issue" them fundamental, natural human rights....)

 

Yes. and it is this: " Those who can't think, fight...." and since you can't do the former, I'll assume you are doing the latter. I win. #WaysToAvoidTrollbait.

 

So then one human being can own another human being and nobody's rights are being violated as long as someone has written down a law saying it's okay?

Don't dodge now.

 

Cool. Thanks for that. It saves a lot of time knowing that you aren't to be taken seriously.

 

Unless there is a law in which case it is not a "natural right". The discussion began and seems to centre around "I have this right regardless of what the constitution says" and sorry no you do NOT have any "rights" without a legal framework stating such

 

Live in a hermitage

Sorry but wherever you get more than one human together you will have contention over who can do what. There may be a set of "mores" ("pronounces mor-ay's ) within the society defining roles and responsibilities but this is NOT universal

 

So you're actually taking the stance that, in the absence of a written law stating such, a human being doesn't have the right to not be owned by another human being? Wow! That's some serious old school thinking right there!

I assume that you would also maintain that the millions of Jews that were killed in Germany didn't have any of their rights infringed upon? Everything was just a-okay and on the up-and-up in your world?

 

Also, it's funny because in the United States the Supreme Court has ruled that certain rights don't rely on any type of legal framework to exist. Our "legal framework" explicitly states that you're mistaken. lol Oh, the irony!

 

The point of my thread is to point out that there is little logical footing in the 2nd's right to own. You are making a different argument I suppose. We need to find better ways to control access to firearms. I trust that your wife is a fantastic person but statistically there is a dark side to all of this. Statistically her gun will end up in the hands of a criminal by some fairly large probability and increase her chances of dying by a firearm from it just being in the household. I guess you are really saying what's the difference between gun X and lesser gun Y and so forth but if you really think it, about recent gun laws banning X or Y, I agree that it makes little difference, I would push for more serious regulation. Lastly, to address your point about guns, I know enough about them, and I know that they are a problem. a PROBLEM. not a SOLUTION. I don't want to get side tracked too much but my point is that the 2nd needs to stop being used to not allow any serious debate on this topic. Like it has been.

 

Hobbsian crapola. Hobbes believed man was inherently evil, and that colored his philosophy on society and human rights.

Tell me, is the thought of rotting away in a government cage THE ONLY thing that prevents you from
raping / robbing / assaulting / defrauding / murdering your next door neighbor?

answer that honestly, and I'll think about teaching you the basics of natural law.

 

Then you understand the foundational concept of natural law....
which means you must support the concept of natural rights.......
which are what exist when there are no government bureaucrats, man made laws, or threats of government cages to influence your interactions with other human beings.

 

Researchers at the University of Melbourne, however, found no such improvement as a result of the new system. "There is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides or suicides," they wrote.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...130118_1_gun-control-mandatory-gun-gun-deaths

OK....Your government's gun-grabbing didn't work as advertised. Now THEY have all the guns. Good luck getting them back.

 

Yes. That kind of program cutting tipifies the short-sighted thinking behind much of the pro-gun rhetoric. That MONUMENTAL cost to the welfare and health of an obese American population, pushing kids away from staying active throughout their lives is dumb in itself. To do it in the name of a cause such as this is daft.

 

Yes...hence the irony.

Our legal framework maintains that certain rights do not require a legal framework to exist.

Perhaps you should read my post again.

 

Yeah, but those results are from an Australian University. Got any studies from real schools?

 

Really? So your legal system is saying that it does not need to be there at all - interesting - got a link??

 

That's an odd inference that you've made....

Here ya' go. I'll quote from the court's decision in DC vs Heller.

We look to this because it has always been widely under(*)
stood that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

 

Your Hobbes tainted concept? I thought we covered that when you said "no"....you would not commit a crime against your neighbor whether government existed or not.

That answer suggests you agree humans are NOT inherently evil, and that Hobbes was full of crap.

 

BECAUSE?

Enlighten me.

No. Btw, was this a rhetorical question? Actually maybe not. I don't believe that it would be common but statistically the risk variable would not warrent this as a prudent option. What if the principal is lax in the background checks, what if he/she flat out doesn't care, what if perhaps they want something to happen without cupability, what if it's too hard to measure the risk? A teacher at the breaking point is no different than anyone else, except they are in charge of children. It's a bad idea on a good day, to counter a random threat is daft.

No it doesn't, you are conflating the reasoning. Nor does it infer that this is a right. Nobody has successfully challenged my initial argument IMHO.

 

Well....I guess Aussies are free to 'study' all they want...As long as the results are are preempted by their government from being implemented. Yeah the Australian government is really 'scared' of The People.... LOL