Tulsa police: Multiple people shot at medical building

That’s irrelevant to the point I’m addressing. Any other logical fallacies you would like to add?

For further education on the topic of Australia and firearm availability go here for information you won’t get anywhere else!

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1073488517/

 

I don't agree with 557's argument.

 

No,because other people have their rights too. Your rights should not necessarily violate somebody else's

 

Who says?

 

Logic and common sense Your rights shouldn't violate anyone else's

 

**** that. What if my beliefs are that my rights are more important than yours? On what grounds do you assert otherwise? And on what grounds is your opinion more valid than mine?

 

they will never admit how bad they are

 

As long as you're responsible, no. But many gun owners seem to think it's their right to be irresponsible. You cannot tell me that many of the people who apparently think that ANY oversight of gun sales is a violation of their "rights" don't really just want to sell guns to gangs at a high profit.

 

We're not talking about beliefs or opinions but rights and facts. Your right to swing your fists ends at the point of someone else's nose. That location is indisputable

 

No the reason they don’t want that is because they don’t want the government to have a database of all firearms.

Why? Let’s assume they create an assault weapons ban and ban all AR-15’s. If they have a database, they will have a record of every person with an AR-15 and they will go confiscate it.

Then if the worst happens and they ban all firearms, they’ll have a complete record of who has them so they can confiscate them.

 

God is nothing more than the nature of a thing. Any living thing that is functioning as it should wishes to keep on living and to not be harmed. (suicide is a mental illness, recognized as such by all schools of thought)

I think you need to reread your Locke. AFAIK a belief in God was not necessary to his philosophy

 

The only time I would not consider suicide to be a mental illness is in the case of terminal illness. A person has a right to choose euthanasia.

 

So how do you think we should keep gangs from getting firearms? How would you keep Antifa and the Communists from getting AR-15s?

 

True, but someone with a terminal illness is sick to begin with. Suicide becomes therapy.

 

So rights come from your instincts? Interesting. And why would those with mental illness not have fundamental rights others have? What about non mental illness? Does that strip you of your rights like you say mental illness does?

Our instincts are for survival. If one person has no food and another does, the survival instinct will drive the person without food to take food from the one who does. The one with food has an instinct to retain the food. So both individuals have an instinct for survival. You say we assume the one with the food has right to self defense and I don’t disagree. I’m just looking for an answer to the question of where rights come from.

To be clear, there isn’t a right or wrong answer. The whole notion of rights is all subjective opinion at the end of the day. I’m just interested in hearing people flesh out and explain the basis for their opinion. The guy who invoked John Locke as the origin of rights just piqued my interest.

 

Who says they have rights? You? There has to be some explanation other than “I have this right, they have this right”. That’s just your opinion.

 

You have a right to exist and others have as much right to exist as you do. That's everyone's opinion, which makes it fact.

 

This is the only argument I’ve made.

What do you disagree with?

 

Stop right there. As long as gun owners aren't causing harm, stop ****ing with us. When a gun owner causes harm, put his ass in jail...just like you would with abuse of any other right.

 

Nobody can offer conclusive evidence “rights” come from anywhere, let alone from non-humans. We are all basing our concept of rights on subjective opinion. Either opinions of secular oriented humans or deistic oriented humans.

We can pretend we have “rights” given us by deity or government and we do. To be a right it has to be given by some higher authority than the individual. But I see no conclusive evidence rights are anything more than constructs. Do you?

And yes, it is true that if rights don’t come from an immutable authority they are privileges more than rights.

Would you agree that rights/liberty are acquired/seized, not “given”?

 

Wow. So if someone kills you they didn’t think you had a right to exist. That means not everyone agrees with you and this latest assertion goes out the window.

Unanimous opinion is fact. Ok. That’s a new one.

 

Who opposes antifa and communists having AR-15’s?

 

I agree. It should be a criminal offense not to secure your gun properly and we should trace all guns used in crimes back to their last legitimate owner and charge that person as accessory to whatever crimes were committed using that gun

 

No sir. Who says that my rights end at your face? Your rights don’t matter in my opinion. Why is your opinion that your rights do matter any more valid than mine?

 

Right back at you