Intruder shot, killed after kicking in door, charging occupant with a knife

#301
#301
NorthDallas40 said:
But it is a fundamental right. It isn’t covered under the “right” to go on living as you stated. You don’t get to impose on another and violate their rights to where they must defend themselves while claiming your right to go on living trumps that imposition. That’s just stupid.

You’re tripping over the right to self defense being fundamental merely because you take exception to the chosen method of firearm. You can’t reconcile that in your thought process so you stupidly limit the right to self defense.

You don’t think the right to self defense by firearm is fundamental because you are irrationally triggered by firearms.
Click to expand...

My right to go on living/be free from bodily harm is infringed when I am attacked/threatened with an attack. That infringement is what triggers/explains the right to defend myself. It's written into the word itself ("defense" implies a reaction to something else). The reason you are justified to react in a particular way (to defend yourself) is because there is some right that is being violated or threatened (your bodily integrity, your right to go on living, be free from harm--whatever you want to call it). If that's the fundamental right, we should be asking what's the best way we have to preserve that right for as many people as possible. Widespread availability of guns has demonstrated that that is NOT the best way to ensure that the greatest number of people will have that basic right protected. Much to the contrary, widespread availability of guns--justified by arguing they're the ideal tool of self-defense--has the opposite effect as guns are used much more often to take life than to preserve life.
 
#302
#302
evillawyer said:
Saying the right to self-defense is not a fundamental right just means a more basic right explains it. In the same way plates exist even though plates are explained by something more fundamental (molecules, atoms, etc).
Click to expand...
then the right to life is also not fundamental as it arises from the right to liberty.
 
#305
#305
NorthDallas40 said:
But it is a fundamental right. It isn’t covered under the “right” to go on living as you stated. You don’t get to impose on another and violate their rights to where they must defend themselves while claiming your right to go on living trumps that imposition. That’s just stupid.

You’re tripping over the right to self defense being fundamental merely because you take exception to the chosen method of firearm. You can’t reconcile that in your thought process so you stupidly limit the right to self defense.

You don’t think the right to self defense by firearm is fundamental because you are irrationally triggered by firearms.
Click to expand...
The right to go on living is secondary to the right of self defense. If one is defending oneself from attack, then the right of self defense supersedes the attackers right to go on living.
 
#306
#306
McDad said:
What about those who are reasoned, reasonable, and consider other's views before reaching a conclusion? Are you impacting them the way you want?
Click to expand...
72 blocked me because the unavoidable penetration was becoming to painful and Weezer has definitely been impacted.
Those are the only two I know.
You're close, and I'm confident you feel I'm going about it in all the wrong ways.
 
#309
#309
luthervol said:
72 blocked me because the unavoidable penetration was becoming to painful and Weezer has definitely been impacted.
Those are the only two I know.
You're close, and I'm confident you feel I'm going about it in all the wrong ways.
Click to expand...
Still waiting for you to refute the idea that I don't need a gun permit to carry concealed......and also the values of your x and y constants, unless they are actually variables and you have some specific rate in mind.
 
#310
#310
evillawyer said:
My right to go on living/be free from bodily harm is infringed when I am attacked/threatened with an attack. That infringement is what triggers/explains the right to defend myself. It's written into the word itself ("defense" implies a reaction to something else). The reason you are justified to react in a particular way (to defend yourself) is because there is some right that is being violated or threatened (your bodily integrity, your right to go on living, be free from harm--whatever you want to call it). If that's the fundamental right, we should be asking what's the best way we have to preserve that right for as many people as possible. Widespread availability of guns has demonstrated that that is NOT the best way to ensure that the greatest number of people will have that basic right protected. Much to the contrary, widespread availability of guns--justified by arguing they're the ideal tool of self-defense--has the opposite effect as guns are used much more often to take life than to preserve life.
Click to expand...
like I said pettifogger who avoids actual numbers while employing court room antics of avoiding the two actual points raised.

1. widespread availability of guns has NOT proven to be a net negative on life in this country. numbers and links have been posted. you avoided.
2. life is not a fundamental right in and of itself either. any value of life is based on the liberty it enjoys. I would say the right of self defense goes back to liberty at least as much as life. because when you deny the right to defend you aren't impacting their life, but their liberty to self determine. again you avoided this topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88, AM64, W.TN.Orange Blood and 2 others
#311
#311
LouderVol said:
like I said pettifogger who avoids actual numbers while employing court room antics of avoiding the two actual points raised.

1. widespread availability of guns has NOT proven to be a net negative on life in this country. numbers and links have been posted. you avoided.
2. life is not a fundamental right in and of itself either. any value of life is based on the liberty it enjoys. I would say the right of self defense goes back to liberty at least as much as life. because when you deny the right to defend you aren't impacting their life, but their liberty to self determine. again you avoided this topic.
Click to expand...
BOON!
 
#312
#312
evillawyer said:
There is no liberty to be had without a living thing to have it.
Click to expand...
and there is no living to be had without the liberty to live. we can circle each other all day with the chicken and egg. If you expand your overly simplistic argument to look at value, especially in this country, liberty is the more precious right. We risked lives to free slaves. we risked lives to gain the liberties denied by the english. The constitution itself spells out rights based on liberties, not life.

and the right in our constitution in question here, isn't self defense, its to simply "bear" guns. not to bear guns in the right of self defense. I think the SCOTUS has ruled along those lines with lawful use vs dependency of the right due to militia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, 82_VOL_83, AM64 and 1 other person
#313
#313
evillawyer said:
I think once you acknowledge that the right to self-defense is a derivative right and if you have tools that are supposed to enhance that derivative right but instead have the effect of infringing the underlying right that explains the derivative right, you have a pretty straightforward path to gun control.
Click to expand...

Like the saying goes, “your rights stop where mine begin”. If “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for you includes trying to harm someone else you won’t be pursuing it very long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, 82_VOL_83, AM64 and 1 other person
#314
#314
luthervol said:
72 blocked me because the unavoidable penetration was becoming to painful and Weezer has definitely been impacted.
Those are the only two I know.
You're close, and I'm confident you feel I'm going about it in all the wrong ways.
Click to expand...
If it is your intention for others to block you, then your impact is successful.
I am just curious if you're effective at what you hope to do in a gun discussion. Your post which started our most recent exchange seemed a bit disappointed that many (most?) have wrongly characterized your views on guns.
 
#315
#315
82_VOL_83 said:
Still waiting for you to refute the idea that I don't need a gun permit to carry concealed......and also the values of your x and y constants, unless they are actually variables and you have some specific rate in mind.
Click to expand...
You need a permit if it is legally required otherwise you are carrying illegally.
x and y are variables that are negotiable.
 
#316
#316
evillawyer said:
My right to go on living/be free from bodily harm is infringed when I am attacked/threatened with an attack. That infringement is what triggers/explains the right to defend myself. It's written into the word itself ("defense" implies a reaction to something else). The reason you are justified to react in a particular way (to defend yourself) is because there is some right that is being violated or threatened (your bodily integrity, your right to go on living, be free from harm--whatever you want to call it). If that's the fundamental right, we should be asking what's the best way we have to preserve that right for as many people as possible. Widespread availability of guns has demonstrated that that is NOT the best way to ensure that the greatest number of people will have that basic right protected. Much to the contrary, widespread availability of guns--justified by arguing they're the ideal tool of self-defense--has the opposite effect as guns are used much more often to take life than to preserve life.
Click to expand...
More stupid word salad trying to reconcile your irrational fear of guns. A moron doesn’t get to invoke a right to life as an affirmative defense when the chose to violate another’s right to not take an ass whipping.

You aren’t against the fundamental right of self defense. You are against the fundamental right of self defense exercised by firearm. You don’t have the ability to limit their right to avoid an ass whipping, the means should be appropriate to exercise the right. And firearms clearly fall within acceptable means.

And no your individual rights owe no answer to some arbitrary collective. That is stupid as hell. Rights follow the individual not the Borg.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and 82_VOL_83
#318
#318
LouderVol said:
and there is no living to be had without the liberty to live. we can circle each other all day with the chicken and egg. If you expand your overly simplistic argument to look at value, especially in this country, liberty is the more precious right. We risked lives to free slaves. we risked lives to gain the liberties denied by the english. The constitution itself spells out rights based on liberties, not life.

and the right in our constitution in question here, isn't self defense, its to simply "bear" guns. not to bear guns in the right of self defense. I think the SCOTUS has ruled along those lines with lawful use vs dependency of the right due to militia.
Click to expand...

In keeping with the legalese. It would seem that you bear a gun until threatened, and then you bare the gun. If the other guy has a couple of functioning brain cells, he takes a hike before it all becomes unbearable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, allvol123 and McDad
#320
#320
C-south said:
Like the saying goes, “your rights stop where mine begin”. If “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for you includes trying to harm someone else you won’t be pursuing it very long.
Click to expand...

That brings up an issue I've thought a lot about - the 1st Amendment and opposing rights. If one person has the right to free speech, do I not have a right not to hear his speech? In some instances we have the ability to turn off someone's speech (verbal or written) if we find it offensive, but in other cases (like travelling in an airplane), you can't. Because of the punctuation, you might suppose that the government doesn't have the authority to muzzle the press or silence speech; but that wouldn't suggest that a private person must be subjected unwillingly to another's speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#321
#321
AM64 said:
That brings up an issue I've thought a lot about - the 1st Amendment and opposing rights. If one person has the right to free speech, do I not have a right not to hear his speech? In some instances we have the ability to turn off someone's speech (verbal or written) if we find it offensive, but in other cases (like travelling in an airplane), you can't. Because of the punctuation, you might suppose that the government doesn't have the authority to muzzle the press or silence speech; but that wouldn't suggest that a private person must be subjected unwillingly to another's speech.
Click to expand...

in the big picture this is about you and the government; not you and other people. so just as you don't have a right to free speech in a private organization (or speech with out consequence) you do not have a right to not hear others' speech

if you are in public then I'd say you demonstrated "willingness" by entering a public space so it's not necessarily unwillingly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and NorthDallas40
#322
#322
volinbham said:
in the big picture this is about you and the government; not you and other people. so just as you don't have a right to free speech in a private organization (or speech with out consequence) you do not have a right to not hear others' speech

if you are in public then I'd say you demonstrated "willingness" by entering a public space so it's not necessarily unwillingly.
Click to expand...

I basically agree, but with a twist. If someone in public is using sidewalks or roads (or possibly other public property) as a platform, then that person is also impeding the right of others to move freely ... depriving them of liberty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top