Do Democrats REALLY Think Americans Will Turn Their Guns In Peacefully If They Pass a Law

[Brian Blackwell]

But of course, they claim to have precisely that. In fact, that’s what makes them government - the “right” to do things that other people don’t have a right to do. And what do we call things that people don’t have a right to do? We call them wrongs, immoral acts, violations of rights.

We call them torts.

Congress has the right to pass laws on behalf of those who elect them, individuals do not. Because should each individual try and pass laws, no one will pay head and there will be chaos, anarchy.

For this reason, governmental authority is inherently immoral. If it were moral, it would no longer be government, because it would be indistinguishable from any other group of individuals.

Utter nonsense. Governments are formed among men to secure the blessings of liberty for them and their families.

We must have a system of justice to resolve disputes in a fair and judicious manner. We must establish the parameters of trade so that theft and fraud are not rampant. We must provide for the comment defense.

Look at what you just said - Congress has the right to make law on behalf of the people, but the people have no such right themselves. If the people have no such right, where did Congress get it? Not from the people, clearly. By writing it down on a piece of parchment? By simply agreeing that it shall be so?

People can’t just make up rights. If they could, than what’s stopping us from agreeing that all people of a certain race are to be slaves? Oh wait, we already tried that. Was it valid? Of course not. Because man does not have the power to alter morality by creating new rights, or getting rid of old ones.

Did you notice how you ignored the question of morality in that argument? You did not attempt to refute my claim, and demonstrate how governmental authority can be moral. Show me a right that government has, but the individual does not, and I’ll show you an immoral act. How do you resolve this?

Saying we “must” have something does not address the validity or morality of that thing. What it says is that you’re willing to overlook invalidity and immorality because you’re afraid of what would happen if that thing went away. Is it not so? If not, how not?

Modern governments are not formed to secure blessings and liberty any more than monarchies were. You can’t secure liberty by infringing upon it, any more than you can secure health by doing unhealthy things.

 

[Marion Morrison]

But of course, they claim to have precisely that. In fact, that’s what makes them government - the “right” to do things that other people don’t have a right to do. And what do we call things that people don’t have a right to do? We call them wrongs, immoral acts, violations of rights.

We call them torts.

Congress has the right to pass laws on behalf of those who elect them, individuals do not. Because should each individual try and pass laws, no one will pay head and there will be chaos, anarchy.

For this reason, governmental authority is inherently immoral. If it were moral, it would no longer be government, because it would be indistinguishable from any other group of individuals.

Utter nonsense. Governments are formed among men to secure the blessings of liberty for them and their families.

We must have a system of justice to resolve disputes in a fair and judicious manner. We must establish the parameters of trade so that theft and fraud are not rampant. We must provide for the comment defense.

Look at what you just said - Congress has the right to make law on behalf of the people, but the people have no such right themselves. If the people have no such right, where did Congress get it? Not from the people, clearly. By writing it down on a piece of parchment? By simply agreeing that it shall be so?

People can’t just make up rights. If they could, than what’s stopping us from agreeing that all people of a certain race are to be slaves? Oh wait, we already tried that. Was it valid? Of course not. Because man does not have the power to alter morality by creating new rights, or getting rid of old ones.

Did you notice how you ignored the question of morality in that argument? You did not attempt to refute my claim, and demonstrate how governmental authority can be moral. Show me a right that government has, but the individual does not, and I’ll show you an immoral act. How do you resolve this?

Saying we “must” have something does not address the validity or morality of that thing. What it says is that you’re willing to overlook invalidity and immorality because you’re afraid of what would happen if that thing went away. Is it not so? If not, how not?

Modern governments are not formed to secure blessings and liberty any more than monarchies were. You can’t secure liberty by infringing upon it, any more than you can secure health by doing unhealthy things.

I ain't so much worried about "modern" governments. I'm worried about 1776-ish governments that affect me, k? Yes with all the changes and amendments and whatnot, still same government.

God Bless America.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

So you intend to shoot police officers ?

People rightly defend themselves against armed robbers. Most police would refuse to become criminals.

Well, all police are criminals against natural law, but within the context you're suggesting, I certainly hope you're right, but I'm not so sure. I think things would have to get pretty bad for them to stand up. If their masters said "go round up all the children and bring them to work camps" I believe many would take a stand, but tyranny doesn't usually work like that. It's more of a step-wise, tip-toe effect.

But if they said "Go get their guns, not ALL of them, just those really dangerous ones that they don't need for hunting and stuff" I think these guys will come and take them. My view can be skewed because I'm from NYC, I don't know. I have this notion that cops in more gun-friendly areas would be more likely to stand up, but it's just a guess.

Disagree that police are criminals against natural law. Except maybe in NYC.
Agree with your comment about tyranny.
About - Oath Keepers

I love what the oath keepers are trying to do, but the Constitution itself condones violation of natural law (ironically, considering who wrote it) because it asserts an inequality of rights. “Congress shall have power...” that other individuals don’t have.

The Constitution is the law of the land. "Natural law" is a fantasy construct.

So you completely dismiss everything the Founding Fathers believed - unalienable rights and so forth - but have total respect for the document expressly born of those beliefs?

Please support your assertion of natural law being a fantasy construct with some rational argumentation, if you would. To make that determination, you must have a great understanding of the principles of natural law and reasons for thinking it’s all bunk, so please explain how you came to this conclusion.

 

[Marion Morrison]

People rightly defend themselves against armed robbers. Most police would refuse to become criminals.

Well, all police are criminals against natural law, but within the context you're suggesting, I certainly hope you're right, but I'm not so sure. I think things would have to get pretty bad for them to stand up. If their masters said "go round up all the children and bring them to work camps" I believe many would take a stand, but tyranny doesn't usually work like that. It's more of a step-wise, tip-toe effect.

But if they said "Go get their guns, not ALL of them, just those really dangerous ones that they don't need for hunting and stuff" I think these guys will come and take them. My view can be skewed because I'm from NYC, I don't know. I have this notion that cops in more gun-friendly areas would be more likely to stand up, but it's just a guess.

Disagree that police are criminals against natural law. Except maybe in NYC.
Agree with your comment about tyranny.
About - Oath Keepers

I love what the oath keepers are trying to do, but the Constitution itself condones violation of natural law (ironically, considering who wrote it) because it asserts an inequality of rights. “Congress shall have power...” that other individuals don’t have.

The Constitution is the law of the land. "Natural law" is a fantasy construct.

So you completely dismiss everything the Founding Fathers believed - unalienable rights and so forth - but have total respect for the document expressly born of those beliefs?

Please support your assertion of natural law being a fantasy construct with some rational argumentation, if you would. To make that determination, you must have a great understanding of the principles of natural law and reasons for thinking it’s all bunk, so please explain how you came to this conclusion.

I like that "Nature's laws" stuff, and don't hold your breath.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

But of course, they claim to have precisely that. In fact, that’s what makes them government - the “right” to do things that other people don’t have a right to do. And what do we call things that people don’t have a right to do? We call them wrongs, immoral acts, violations of rights.

We call them torts.

Congress has the right to pass laws on behalf of those who elect them, individuals do not. Because should each individual try and pass laws, no one will pay head and there will be chaos, anarchy.

For this reason, governmental authority is inherently immoral. If it were moral, it would no longer be government, because it would be indistinguishable from any other group of individuals.

Utter nonsense. Governments are formed among men to secure the blessings of liberty for them and their families.

We must have a system of justice to resolve disputes in a fair and judicious manner. We must establish the parameters of trade so that theft and fraud are not rampant. We must provide for the comment defense.

Look at what you just said - Congress has the right to make law on behalf of the people, but the people have no such right themselves. If the people have no such right, where did Congress get it? Not from the people, clearly. By writing it down on a piece of parchment? By simply agreeing that it shall be so?

People can’t just make up rights. If they could, than what’s stopping us from agreeing that all people of a certain race are to be slaves? Oh wait, we already tried that. Was it valid? Of course not. Because man does not have the power to alter morality by creating new rights, or getting rid of old ones.

Did you notice how you ignored the question of morality in that argument? You did not attempt to refute my claim, and demonstrate how governmental authority can be moral. Show me a right that government has, but the individual does not, and I’ll show you an immoral act. How do you resolve this?

Saying we “must” have something does not address the validity or morality of that thing. What it says is that you’re willing to overlook invalidity and immorality because you’re afraid of what would happen if that thing went away. Is it not so? If not, how not?

Modern governments are not formed to secure blessings and liberty any more than monarchies were. You can’t secure liberty by infringing upon it, any more than you can secure health by doing unhealthy things.

I ain't so much worried about "modern" governments. I'm worried about 1776-ish governments that affect me, k? Yes with all the changes and amendments and whatnot, still same government.

I meant modern relative to the monarchies they replaced. This includes the U.S. at its inception. Your reply does not address the point that you can’t secure liberty by infringing upon it. This is illogical to the point of being oxymoronic.

 

[Marion Morrison]

But of course, they claim to have precisely that. In fact, that’s what makes them government - the “right” to do things that other people don’t have a right to do. And what do we call things that people don’t have a right to do? We call them wrongs, immoral acts, violations of rights.

We call them torts.

Congress has the right to pass laws on behalf of those who elect them, individuals do not. Because should each individual try and pass laws, no one will pay head and there will be chaos, anarchy.

For this reason, governmental authority is inherently immoral. If it were moral, it would no longer be government, because it would be indistinguishable from any other group of individuals.

Utter nonsense. Governments are formed among men to secure the blessings of liberty for them and their families.

We must have a system of justice to resolve disputes in a fair and judicious manner. We must establish the parameters of trade so that theft and fraud are not rampant. We must provide for the comment defense.

Look at what you just said - Congress has the right to make law on behalf of the people, but the people have no such right themselves. If the people have no such right, where did Congress get it? Not from the people, clearly. By writing it down on a piece of parchment? By simply agreeing that it shall be so?

People can’t just make up rights. If they could, than what’s stopping us from agreeing that all people of a certain race are to be slaves? Oh wait, we already tried that. Was it valid? Of course not. Because man does not have the power to alter morality by creating new rights, or getting rid of old ones.

Did you notice how you ignored the question of morality in that argument? You did not attempt to refute my claim, and demonstrate how governmental authority can be moral. Show me a right that government has, but the individual does not, and I’ll show you an immoral act. How do you resolve this?

Saying we “must” have something does not address the validity or morality of that thing. What it says is that you’re willing to overlook invalidity and immorality because you’re afraid of what would happen if that thing went away. Is it not so? If not, how not?

Modern governments are not formed to secure blessings and liberty any more than monarchies were. You can’t secure liberty by infringing upon it, any more than you can secure health by doing unhealthy things.

I ain't so much worried about "modern" governments. I'm worried about 1776-ish governments that affect me, k? Yes with all the changes and amendments and whatnot, still same government.

I meant modern relative to the monarchies they replaced. This includes the U.S. at its inception. Your reply does not address the point that you can’t secure liberty by infringing upon it. This is illogical to the point of being oxymoronic.

No duh! Every American should have access to whatever firearms they want, as long as they're legally able to own them.

Suppressors, too. Those should be way more readily available.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

So you intend to shoot police officers ?

People rightly defend themselves against armed robbers. Most police would refuse to become criminals.

Well, all police are criminals against natural law, but within the context you're suggesting, I certainly hope you're right, but I'm not so sure. I think things would have to get pretty bad for them to stand up. If their masters said "go round up all the children and bring them to work camps" I believe many would take a stand, but tyranny doesn't usually work like that. It's more of a step-wise, tip-toe effect.

But if they said "Go get their guns, not ALL of them, just those really dangerous ones that they don't need for hunting and stuff" I think these guys will come and take them. My view can be skewed because I'm from NYC, I don't know. I have this notion that cops in more gun-friendly areas would be more likely to stand up, but it's just a guess.

Disagree that police are criminals against natural law. Except maybe in NYC.
Agree with your comment about tyranny.
About - Oath Keepers

I love what the oath keepers are trying to do, but the Constitution itself condones violation of natural law (ironically, considering who wrote it) because it asserts an inequality of rights. “Congress shall have power...” that other individuals don’t have.

Congress is not an individual and does not have rights. Congress has lawful limited authority.

Um... Congress is a group of human beings, is it not? Making them all stand in one place, pointing at them and calling them “Congress” doesn’t change that fact. Men make laws, men enforce laws, and men who do these things claim rights that others don’t have (euphemized as “lawful limited authority”). Do you agree?

 

[Auld Phart]

The topic is turning in guns.

not beer, not pizza, etc.

get back on topic

 

[Brian Blackwell]

But of course, they claim to have precisely that. In fact, that’s what makes them government - the “right” to do things that other people don’t have a right to do. And what do we call things that people don’t have a right to do? We call them wrongs, immoral acts, violations of rights.

We call them torts.

Congress has the right to pass laws on behalf of those who elect them, individuals do not. Because should each individual try and pass laws, no one will pay head and there will be chaos, anarchy.

For this reason, governmental authority is inherently immoral. If it were moral, it would no longer be government, because it would be indistinguishable from any other group of individuals.

Utter nonsense. Governments are formed among men to secure the blessings of liberty for them and their families.

We must have a system of justice to resolve disputes in a fair and judicious manner. We must establish the parameters of trade so that theft and fraud are not rampant. We must provide for the comment defense.

Look at what you just said - Congress has the right to make law on behalf of the people, but the people have no such right themselves. If the people have no such right, where did Congress get it? Not from the people, clearly. By writing it down on a piece of parchment? By simply agreeing that it shall be so?

People can’t just make up rights. If they could, than what’s stopping us from agreeing that all people of a certain race are to be slaves? Oh wait, we already tried that. Was it valid? Of course not. Because man does not have the power to alter morality by creating new rights, or getting rid of old ones.

Did you notice how you ignored the question of morality in that argument? You did not attempt to refute my claim, and demonstrate how governmental authority can be moral. Show me a right that government has, but the individual does not, and I’ll show you an immoral act. How do you resolve this?

Saying we “must” have something does not address the validity or morality of that thing. What it says is that you’re willing to overlook invalidity and immorality because you’re afraid of what would happen if that thing went away. Is it not so? If not, how not?

Modern governments are not formed to secure blessings and liberty any more than monarchies were. You can’t secure liberty by infringing upon it, any more than you can secure health by doing unhealthy things.

I ain't so much worried about "modern" governments. I'm worried about 1776-ish governments that affect me, k? Yes with all the changes and amendments and whatnot, still same government.

I meant modern relative to the monarchies they replaced. This includes the U.S. at its inception. Your reply does not address the point that you can’t secure liberty by infringing upon it. This is illogical to the point of being oxymoronic.

No duh! Every American should have access to whatever firearms they want, as long as they're legally able to own them.

Suppressors, too. Those should be way more readily available.

“Legally” is a tricky term here. I suppose you mean as per the Constitution, and not modern law. But even the Constitution claims to secure liberty by infringing upon it; not in the realm of gun ownership, but certainly in regard to taxation.

 

[Marion Morrison]

We call them torts.

Congress has the right to pass laws on behalf of those who elect them, individuals do not. Because should each individual try and pass laws, no one will pay head and there will be chaos, anarchy.

Utter nonsense. Governments are formed among men to secure the blessings of liberty for them and their families.

We must have a system of justice to resolve disputes in a fair and judicious manner. We must establish the parameters of trade so that theft and fraud are not rampant. We must provide for the comment defense.

Look at what you just said - Congress has the right to make law on behalf of the people, but the people have no such right themselves. If the people have no such right, where did Congress get it? Not from the people, clearly. By writing it down on a piece of parchment? By simply agreeing that it shall be so?

People can’t just make up rights. If they could, than what’s stopping us from agreeing that all people of a certain race are to be slaves? Oh wait, we already tried that. Was it valid? Of course not. Because man does not have the power to alter morality by creating new rights, or getting rid of old ones.

Did you notice how you ignored the question of morality in that argument? You did not attempt to refute my claim, and demonstrate how governmental authority can be moral. Show me a right that government has, but the individual does not, and I’ll show you an immoral act. How do you resolve this?

Saying we “must” have something does not address the validity or morality of that thing. What it says is that you’re willing to overlook invalidity and immorality because you’re afraid of what would happen if that thing went away. Is it not so? If not, how not?

Modern governments are not formed to secure blessings and liberty any more than monarchies were. You can’t secure liberty by infringing upon it, any more than you can secure health by doing unhealthy things.

I ain't so much worried about "modern" governments. I'm worried about 1776-ish governments that affect me, k? Yes with all the changes and amendments and whatnot, still same government.

I meant modern relative to the monarchies they replaced. This includes the U.S. at its inception. Your reply does not address the point that you can’t secure liberty by infringing upon it. This is illogical to the point of being oxymoronic.

No duh! Every American should have access to whatever firearms they want, as long as they're legally able to own them.

Suppressors, too. Those should be way more readily available.

“Legally” is a tricky term here. I suppose you mean as per the Constitution, and not modern law. But even the Constitution claims to secure liberty by infringing upon it; not in the realm of gun ownership, but certainly in regard to taxation.

I for one, am not appreciative of your doublespeak.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

“Legally” is a tricky term here. I suppose you mean as per the Constitution, and not modern law. But even the Constitution claims to secure liberty by infringing upon it; not in the realm of gun ownership, but certainly in regard to taxation.

I for one, am not appreciative of your doublespeak.

Ah, quite sorry. When you say that people should have guns available, as long as they are "legally" able to own them, I figured you meant "legally" as in the 2nd Amendment. Because obviously, if government makes a law today that says "no more guns for anyone", that would mean all guns would be illegal, and I don't think you would then say, "I don't think people should have guns available because they are no longer legal". Know what I mean?

And the Constitution claims to secure liberty by infringing upon it. It says we need government to protect our liberty, then the first thing it does is say "we have the right to tax people" (take money from them under threat of violence) which is obviously a direct infringement upon liberty. So what gives?

 

[Marion Morrison]

“Legally” is a tricky term here. I suppose you mean as per the Constitution, and not modern law. But even the Constitution claims to secure liberty by infringing upon it; not in the realm of gun ownership, but certainly in regard to taxation.

I for one, am not appreciative of your doublespeak.

Ah, quite sorry. When you say that people should have guns available, as long as they are "legally" able to own them, I figured you meant "legally" as in the 2nd Amendment. Because obviously, if government makes a law today that says "no more guns for anyone", that would mean all guns would be illegal, and I don't think you would then say, "I don't think people should have guns available because they are no longer legal". Know what I mean?

And the Constitution claims to secure liberty by infringing upon it. It says we need government to protect our liberty, then the first thing it does is say "we have the right to tax people" (take money from them under threat of violence) which is obviously a direct infringement upon liberty. So what gives?

You damn right I wouldn't. That's something that would be against the Constitution.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

“Legally” is a tricky term here. I suppose you mean as per the Constitution, and not modern law. But even the Constitution claims to secure liberty by infringing upon it; not in the realm of gun ownership, but certainly in regard to taxation.

I for one, am not appreciative of your doublespeak.

Ah, quite sorry. When you say that people should have guns available, as long as they are "legally" able to own them, I figured you meant "legally" as in the 2nd Amendment. Because obviously, if government makes a law today that says "no more guns for anyone", that would mean all guns would be illegal, and I don't think you would then say, "I don't think people should have guns available because they are no longer legal". Know what I mean?

And the Constitution claims to secure liberty by infringing upon it. It says we need government to protect our liberty, then the first thing it does is say "we have the right to tax people" (take money from them under threat of violence) which is obviously a direct infringement upon liberty. So what gives?

You damn right I wouldn't. That's something that would be against the Constitution.

Very well then.

I don't care about something being against the Constitution as a matter of law, I care about it being against basic human rights. The 2nd Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's saying that the right exists, independent of any law, and that it shall not be infringed upon. The right is not based in man's law, it's based in natural law - God-given, unalienable rights and whatnot.

Unfortunately, what's also an unalienable right is to not have your labor claimed by another under threat of violence, but they dropped the ball on this one and said "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes".

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Most gun owners claim they are law abiding citizens and they shouldn’t be confused with those that are not

If regulations regarding background checks, registration, allowable weapons and magazine size are changed......I imagine law abiding citizens will comply

Nope....no more creeping gun control.

Who are you going to shoot?

Tell us tough guy

Your type of course......if I can find you in the myriad of basements in the US.
It'd help if ya dont mind putting Hillary 2016 signs in your yard.
Thanks in advance.

 

[regent]

In these things about guns I always wonder what is the attraction of guns? Why would people be willing to threaten a civil war to keep their guns? Is the attraction of guns in themselves, is it what they do, is it the feeling a person gets when he carries a gun. Just what?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Gun owners are pussies at heart.....that is why they have guns in the first place

Yeah, because I'm sure gun law advocates will be first in line to fight back against a tyrannical government. With what? Pussy hats?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Do Democrats REALLY Think Americans Will Turn Their Guns In Peacefully If They Pass a Law

What guns? Didn't President Obama take them all?

No thank goodness.
Had your hero Hillary been elected we'dalready be in a shooting war.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

In these things about guns I always wonder what is the attraction of guns? Why would people be willing to threaten a civil war to keep their guns? Is the attraction of guns in themselves, is it what they do, is it the feeling a person gets when he carries a gun. Just what?

It's the fact that the right to bear arms is the right that ultimately protects every other.

It's the fact that to deny people the right to defend themselves is no different then denying them the right to secure food, shelter, or any other fundamental means of survival.

It's the fact that parchments, oaths, and protest marches can't stop government overreaching to the point of outright tyranny. Only the ability to fight back can do that.

Don't ever get to thinking this ain't still a jungle. Law is not a protection. DEFENSE is the only true protection.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Most gun owners claim they are law abiding citizens and they shouldn’t be confused with those that are not

If regulations regarding background checks, registration, allowable weapons and magazine size are changed......I imagine law abiding citizens will comply

It is amusing how some of the very worst of corrupt leftist filth like to speak of the rule of law, while defending the ultimate lawlessness of violating the Constitution which is this nation's highest law.

 

[Marion Morrison]

In these things about guns I always wonder what is the attraction of guns? Why would people be willing to threaten a civil war to keep their guns? Is the attraction of guns in themselves, is it what they do, is it the feeling a person gets when he carries a gun. Just what?

It's the fact that the right to bear arms is the right that ultimately protects every other.

It's the fact that to deny people the right to defend themselves is no different then denying them the right to secure food, shelter, or any other fundamental means of survival.

It's the fact that parchments, oaths, and protest marches can't stop government overreaching to the point of outright tyranny. Only the ability to fight back can do that.

Don't ever get to thinking this ain't still a jungle. Law is not a protection. DEFENSE is the only true protection.

You could always offer dipshit a ride to the middle of the woods, where there's bears and Coyotes, and big cats, put him out, and tell him "Fuck You, you don't like guns, remember?"

He could get killed by a deer.

It's triple dangerous in FL woods. Not only are there the 3 critters I mentioned, there's around 6 more.

Gators, Diamondbacks, Crocodiles, poisonous spiders, Moccasins, Pygmy Rattlers.

And here some dumbass is talking about banning guns.

That dumbass needs dropped off where the critters are.

Did I mention wild boar? There's Razorbacks, too. Git you some!