White supremacist mows down mosque in NZ

#926
#926
Vol8188 said:
You’re confusing two things. I assume it’s because you don’t understand rights. But let’s play this dumb game.

Should anything I could possibly kill you with be regulated or removed from society? Knives, fists, rocks, 2x4, lead pipe, candle sticks, frying pans?

I mean, what’s greater my right to use cast iron to fry my bacon or your right to life?
Click to expand...
Bacon always wins
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and NorthDallas40
#927
#927
evillawyer said:
I'm making a philosophical point that there is something more fundamental that explains why we have a right to self defense. That is the right to go on living. I have the right to defend myself BECAUSE I have the right to go on living.
Click to expand...

Tell that to these people.

Man shoots intruder multiple times on Lucille Street in Mobile
Armed neighbor thwarts alleged package thief
Police: Would-be robber dies after being shot by store owner in West Philadelphia
Man Stabbed In Battle Creek As Neighbor Fires 'Warning Shot'
APD: Pizza shop employee shoots suspected robber

I think the oldest of these is less than a week and there's no chance in hell this is anything more than tip of the iceberg. You have a right to defend yourself. You have no business screwing with other's right to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#928
#928
evillawyer said:
Any right you have to self-defense is not fundamental. What supports or underlies that right is a more fundamental right to go on living or not be killed. You have a right to self defense because you have a right to go on living. But if, in order to protect that right to self-defense, you introduce some mechanism that has the effect of killing more people than it saves, my (and everyone else's) right to go on living would trump your right to have a gun.
Click to expand...

As long as humans exist there will be mechanisms that can kill more people than they save. So are you advocating the banning of humans?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and tennvols77
#929
#929
#930
#930
hog88 said:
As long as humans exist there will be mechanisms that can kill more people than they save. So are you advocating the banning of humans?
Click to expand...

This is the point of the argument the lib doesn't get, humans, individuals particularly, are going to do what they want, no law or commandment straight from God's mouth him/herself will matter.

They actually believe that "Man" and "Man's free will" can be legislated or even controlled. The inanimate objects they seek to regulate don't matter, because you can't regulate or control the individual, yet, they think they can.
 
#931
#931
NorthDallas40 said:
Being able to protect your life is a natural right. You’re trying to sell that you don’t need a gun to do so. You’ll lose that fight. NFA1934 needs to be repealed immediately Dr Phil.
Click to expand...

Where can I find your complete list of natural rights?
 
#932
#932
Velo Vol said:
Where can I find your complete list of natural rights?
Click to expand...
Why should I feel compelled to provide you one Dr Phil. You’re trying to convince me to give up my rights here remember?

But you can start reading with the Bill of Rights. Those are not rights granted by the government they are explicit thou shalt NOTS to the governments. I swear for the Love I never understand why people think their government is allowed to grant them something that is already innately theirs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#933
#933
Velo Vol said:
It's a legal right, not a natural right.
Click to expand...

Heller reaffirms a point made in the 1876 Cruikshank case.2 The right to arms (unlike, say, the right to grand jury indictment) is not a right which is granted by the Constitution. It is a pre-existing natural right which is recognized and protected by the Constitution:

t has always been widely understood 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, “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second [A]mendment declares that it shall not be infringed. . . .

Whole thing here if interested.

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/Natural-right-self-defense.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and NorthDallas40
#934
#934
NorthDallas40 said:
Why do you have to sound like Dr Phil and ask dumbass questions all the time? How many people who used a gun to take another life an not in a case of self defense didn’t commit homocide. How many of those cases involving intent to murder didn’t commit murder? How many gun laws prevented them from happening.

Repeat it with me Dr Phil. Criminals don’t obey the law, even gun laws.
Click to expand...

Funny how rarely you answer my "dumbass questions". Instead, you answer something I didn't ask.

If the fact that people break laws is evidence that that a law "doesn't work," why even have laws?
 
#935
#935
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#937
#937
hndog609 said:
Heller reaffirms a point made in the 1876 Cruikshank case.2 The right to arms (unlike, say, the right to grand jury indictment) is not a right which is granted by the Constitution. It is a pre-existing natural right which is recognized and protected by the Constitution:

t has always been widely understood 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, “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second [A]mendment declares that it shall not be infringed. . . .

Whole thing here if interested.

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/Natural-right-self-defense.pdf
Click to expand...
He isn’t.
 
#938
#938
Velo Vol said:
Funny how rarely you answer my "dumbass questions". Instead, you answer something I didn't ask.

If the fact that people break laws is evidence that that a law "doesn't work," why even have laws?
Click to expand...
No I answered it. What’s funny is it’s the answer we always give that you ignore. Gun laws have zero impact on criminals. It’s very simple.
 
#939
#939
evillawyer said:
I'm making a philosophical point that there is something more fundamental that explains why we have a right to self defense. That is the right to go on living. I have the right to defend myself BECAUSE I have the right to go on living.
Click to expand...

Philosophy is fun to sit around and talk about , in real life situations that require more that talk I’d rather have my right to keep and bear arms . For me it’s a lot easier to have a weapon than to come get you and have you talk the person out of trying to impose his will on me and my family .
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#942
#942
luthervol said:
No one is attempting to take your right to own a fire arm away from you, only regulate the purchase and use. BIG DIFFERENCE
Click to expand...

They are already regulated . What you want now is MORE regulations . After that it’s MORE and then MORE until the only thing left is a bolt action 22 rifle a single shot shotgun with ammunition registered via finger prints and a bank vault to store it all in that requires two fully registered adults along with a pre approved board certified permission slip that you can remove them on a Saturday between 9am and 9:45 once a month . If you are a good little boy or girl . We all know how this works that’s why nobody is willing to give in .
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1, NurseGoodVol and NorthDallas40
#944
#944
evillawyer said:
I'm making a philosophical point that there is something more fundamental that explains why we have a right to self defense. That is the right to go on living. I have the right to defend myself BECAUSE I have the right to go on living.
Click to expand...
Philosophically ground that right.
 
#945
#945
evillawyer said:
Any right you have to self-defense is not fundamental. What supports or underlies that right is a more fundamental right to go on living or not be killed. You have a right to self defense because you have a right to go on living. But if, in order to protect that right to self-defense, you introduce some mechanism that has the effect of killing more people than it saves, my (and everyone else's) right to go on living would trump your right to have a gun.
Click to expand...

Rights are rooted in freedom. Until another person violates your freedom, you have no “right” to restrict that person or decide how they may protect themselves.

And according to the cdc guns save more people than they kill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1, NorthDallas40, tennvols77 and 1 other person
#946
#946
Orangeslice13 said:
He’s entitled to his opinion
I’m entitled to a different opinion

He’s not discredited by my opinion any more than mine is by him. View attachment 198245
Click to expand...
So what's your "opinion" on these statements:
"I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump. I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.”.....
“Second Amendment people” (preventing the appointment of liberal judges)....
“You also had some very fine people on both sides,”...
suggested his supporters “knock the hell” out of hecklers....
“He doesn't have a birth certificate, or if he does, there's something on that certificate that is very bad for him. ..
" And I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down.”

...“Maybe he feels comfortable there … There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” (It was Obama's first visit to a mosque during his presidency)....
“The children of Muslim American parents, they’re responsible for a growing number for whatever reason a growing number of terrorist attacks,”

... I could go on.....

Trump response to NZ---channeling his inner Marcus Aurelius: My warmest sympathy and best wishes goes out to the people of New Zealand after the horrible massacre in the Mosques"
 
#948
#948
NorthDallas40 said:
Why do you have to sound like Dr Phil and ask dumbass questions all the time? How many people who used a gun to take another life an not in a case of self defense didn’t commit homocide. How many of those cases involving intent to murder didn’t commit murder? How many gun laws prevented them from happening.

Repeat it with me Dr Phil. Criminals don’t obey the law, even gun laws.
Click to expand...
Repeat it with me......worst and most juvenile argument ever.
NFL rules against offensive holding do not prevent all holding; but I can give you a 100% guarantee, if there weren't rules against it, it would happen far more frequently.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top