Virginia - This Is Only The Beginning

[Blues Man]

Unalienable refers to the belief that rights are not granted by government but rather are imbued in each person.

You're certainly welcome to your beliefs. You're not welcome to rewrite the Constitution.

And you're not welcome to disregard what the Constitution clearly, explicitly states.

Where does it say in the Constitution that gun rights are inalienable and therefore granted by our creator?

You're confusing thr declaration of independence with the constitution again

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[alang1216]

ok shall not be infringed

Except when your rights infringe on the rights of others.

There is no right that anyone has, that is being infringed or otherwise violated, by someone else being in possession of a weapon.

Your right to carry a weapon to feel safe does not necessarily make me feel safe, my right. Now if there were strict carry rules that involved weapons training you had to take, seeing you carrying a gun might make me safe. If I thought you were at least as well trained as a cop, I'm be all for it.

 

[Blues Man]

ok shall not be infringed

Except when your rights infringe on the rights of others.

There is no right that anyone has, that is being infringed or otherwise violated, by someone else being in possession of a weapon.

Your right to carry a weapon to feel safe does not necessarily make me feel safe, my right. Now if there were strict carry rules that involved weapons training you had to take, seeing you carrying a gun might make me safe. If I thought you were at least as well trained as a cop, I'm be all for it.

I have no obligation to make you feel safe.

And there is no right to safety written or implied in the Constitution

And you would not know if I was carrying even if you were standing right next to me

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Cellblock2429]

Unalienable refers to the belief that rights are not granted by government but rather are imbued in each person.

You're certainly welcome to your beliefs. You're not welcome to rewrite the Constitution.

And you're not welcome to disregard what the Constitution clearly, explicitly states.

Where does it say in the Constitution that gun rights are inalienable and therefore granted by our creator?

/——/ Right after it says abortion is inalienable and granted by our creator.

 

[alang1216]

My right to self-defense predates any form of government. my right to self-defense exists where I step and as far as I can see. it doesn't stop at my property it exceeds past county lines. If I am there my right is there with me. Your compromise is unacceptable.

You're welcome to defend yourself, I just don't think I want you walking in my neighborhood packing a nuclear bomb. Unless you have a permit of course.

/——/ When it comes to idiotic Strawman arguments, yours are the wackiest. Keep up the good work.

You're welcome to defend yourself. You're welcome to walk in my neighborhood packing a big stick. No permit required. Between a stick and a nuclear bomb is lots of territory and I'm happy to discuss where that line should be drawn. I just think there needs to be a line.

 

[alang1216]

Do yo need a tank in case the Russians invade?

As I wrote previously, even those unalienable rights are subject to limitations. Capital punishment, prison, and eminent domain come to mind.

If the Russians did invade, would you try to deprive me of my right to try to fight them back with a tank?

I'd have to see your tank drivers license before I decide.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Where does it say in the Constitution that gun rights are inalienable and therefore granted by our creator?

It doesn't say that, exactly, but it does identify the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and it explicitly forbids government from infringing this right.

 

[alang1216]

Where does it say in the Constitution that gun rights are inalienable and therefore granted by our creator?

It doesn't say that, exactly, but it does identify the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and it explicitly forbids government from infringing this right.

Agreed. Question: do you think we should be able to have any weapon we can afford and do whatever we want with them or do you think the right to bear arms is more limited, in other words only some guns are included and only some people get to exercise their right to bear arms.?

 

[Blues Man]

Where does it say in the Constitution that gun rights are inalienable and therefore granted by our creator?

It doesn't say that, exactly, but it does identify the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and it explicitly forbids government from infringing this right.

Agreed. Question: do you think we should be able to have any weapon we can afford and do whatever we want with them or do you think the right to bear arms is more limited, in other words only some guns are included and only some people get to exercise their right to bear arms.?

How many times do you have to have it explained to you that the mere ownership of an object is not the problem.

We have laws that clearly state what the legal uses of firearms are.

It doesn't matter what firearms a person owns only that the laws regarding the use of those firearms are followed

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Cellblock2429]

Where does it say in the Constitution that gun rights are inalienable and therefore granted by our creator?

It doesn't say that, exactly, but it does identify the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and it explicitly forbids government from infringing this right.

Agreed. Question: do you think we should be able to have any weapon we can afford and do whatever we want with them or do you think the right to bear arms is more limited, in other words only some guns are included and only some people get to exercise their right to bear arms.?

/—-/ Its intellectuality dishonestly and laziness to take an argument to the extreme example. That’s why you do it.

 

[22lcidw]

ok shall not be infringed

Except when your rights infringe on the rights of others.

There is no right that anyone has, that is being infringed or otherwise violated, by someone else being in possession of a weapon.

Your right to carry a weapon to feel safe does not necessarily make me feel safe, my right. Now if there were strict carry rules that involved weapons training you had to take, seeing you carrying a gun might make me safe. If I thought you were at least as well trained as a cop, I'm be all for it.

There are a lot of cops that are not that good with weapons. The gun issue is a tough one. However the criminals drew first blood many decades ago while our government entities played and play political games on the people who follow the laws and rules.

 

[basquebromance]

Yikes: “Northam could call the National Guard, if necessary” to force county sheriffs to enforce the new gun control laws

Yes, Virginia, the governor really can use the National Guard to enforce gun control

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yikes: “Northam could call the National Guard, if necessary” to force county sheriffs to enforce the new gun control laws

Yes, Virginia, the governor really can use the National Guard to enforce gun control

It would be amusing to see him try.

I think if he does, he'll find that the vast majority of members of the National Guard will not be on his side. It's more likely that they'd come after him, than that they'd go into their own communities and make war against their own families, friends, and neighbors.

 

[alang1216]

Where does it say in the Constitution that gun rights are inalienable and therefore granted by our creator?

It doesn't say that, exactly, but it does identify the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and it explicitly forbids government from infringing this right.

Agreed. Question: do you think we should be able to have any weapon we can afford and do whatever we want with them or do you think the right to bear arms is more limited, in other words only some guns are included and only some people get to exercise their right to bear arms.?

How many times do you have to have it explained to you that the mere ownership of an object is not the problem.

We have laws that clearly state what the legal uses of firearms are.

It doesn't matter what firearms a person owns only that the laws regarding the use of those firearms are followed

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You must live in a world where all people are honest and responsible. The world I live in has criminals, gangs, political and religious extremists, children who shoot up their schools for notoriety and suicide, etc.

 

[alang1216]

Where does it say in the Constitution that gun rights are inalienable and therefore granted by our creator?

It doesn't say that, exactly, but it does identify the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and it explicitly forbids government from infringing this right.

Agreed. Question: do you think we should be able to have any weapon we can afford and do whatever we want with them or do you think the right to bear arms is more limited, in other words only some guns are included and only some people get to exercise their right to bear arms.?

/—-/ Its intellectuality dishonestly and laziness to take an argument to the extreme example. That’s why you do it.

No, why I do it is to establish that there are boundaries in gun control at the extremes that we should all be able to agree should not be crossed. Once that is established a reasonable discussion can ensue.

My problem with many of the pro-gun people on this site is that they take the ideological stance that any gun control is a violation of their Constitutional rights. To me that is the extreme and, as you say, it is intellectually dishonest and lazy.

 

[Blues Man]

Where does it say in the Constitution that gun rights are inalienable and therefore granted by our creator?

It doesn't say that, exactly, but it does identify the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and it explicitly forbids government from infringing this right.

Agreed. Question: do you think we should be able to have any weapon we can afford and do whatever we want with them or do you think the right to bear arms is more limited, in other words only some guns are included and only some people get to exercise their right to bear arms.?

How many times do you have to have it explained to you that the mere ownership of an object is not the problem.

We have laws that clearly state what the legal uses of firearms are.

It doesn't matter what firearms a person owns only that the laws regarding the use of those firearms are followed

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You must live in a world where all people are honest and responsible. The world I live in has criminals, gangs, political and religious extremists, children who shoot up their schools for notoriety and suicide, etc.

Once again

There is no justification for curbing the rights of law abiding people because some other people might break the law.

Would you consent to warrantless searches of your home because the cops tell you it will prevent someone else from committing a crime? Would you give up your fifth amendment rights because someone told you that it might prevent a person from committing a crime?

 

[Blues Man]

Where does it say in the Constitution that gun rights are inalienable and therefore granted by our creator?

It doesn't say that, exactly, but it does identify the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and it explicitly forbids government from infringing this right.

Agreed. Question: do you think we should be able to have any weapon we can afford and do whatever we want with them or do you think the right to bear arms is more limited, in other words only some guns are included and only some people get to exercise their right to bear arms.?

/—-/ Its intellectuality dishonestly and laziness to take an argument to the extreme example. That’s why you do it.

No, why I do it is to establish that there are boundaries in gun control at the extremes that we should all be able to agree should not be crossed. Once that is established a reasonable discussion can ensue.

My problem with many of the pro-gun people on this site is that they take the ideological stance that any gun control is a violation of their Constitutional rights. To me that is the extreme and, as you say, it is intellectually dishonest and lazy.

The extremes you speak of are behavioral and have nothing to do with what type or how many firearms a person owns.

We already have hundreds if not thousands of laws on the books that lay out what the legal uses of firearms are.

MAybe we should enforce those laws

 

[alang1216]

ok shall not be infringed

Except when your rights infringe on the rights of others.

There is no right that anyone has, that is being infringed or otherwise violated, by someone else being in possession of a weapon.

Your right to carry a weapon to feel safe does not necessarily make me feel safe, my right. Now if there were strict carry rules that involved weapons training you had to take, seeing you carrying a gun might make me safe. If I thought you were at least as well trained as a cop, I'm be all for it.

There are a lot of cops that are not that good with weapons. The gun issue is a tough one. However the criminals drew first blood many decades ago while our government entities played and play political games on the people who follow the laws and rules.

We need train

Where does it say in the Constitution that gun rights are inalienable and therefore granted by our creator?

It doesn't say that, exactly, but it does identify the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and it explicitly forbids government from infringing this right.

Agreed. Question: do you think we should be able to have any weapon we can afford and do whatever we want with them or do you think the right to bear arms is more limited, in other words only some guns are included and only some people get to exercise their right to bear arms.?

How many times do you have to have it explained to you that the mere ownership of an object is not the problem.

We have laws that clearly state what the legal uses of firearms are.

It doesn't matter what firearms a person owns only that the laws regarding the use of those firearms are followed

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You must live in a world where all people are honest and responsible. The world I live in has criminals, gangs, political and religious extremists, children who shoot up their schools for notoriety and suicide, etc.

Once again

There is no justification for curbing the rights of law abiding people because some other people might break the law.

Would you consent to warrantless searches of your home because the cops tell you it will prevent someone else from committing a crime? Would you give up your fifth amendment rights because someone told you that it might prevent a person from committing a crime?

Your ideological purity is noted. Maybe we should remove all speed limits on our roads and trust people will act responsibly and not drive unsafely.

As for warrantless searches, if the people my community decided there was a valid reason that would make us all safer I'd say that is a democracy. I don't see that scenario playing out though.

 

[alang1216]

Where does it say in the Constitution that gun rights are inalienable and therefore granted by our creator?

It doesn't say that, exactly, but it does identify the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and it explicitly forbids government from infringing this right.

Agreed. Question: do you think we should be able to have any weapon we can afford and do whatever we want with them or do you think the right to bear arms is more limited, in other words only some guns are included and only some people get to exercise their right to bear arms.?

/—-/ Its intellectuality dishonestly and laziness to take an argument to the extreme example. That’s why you do it.

No, why I do it is to establish that there are boundaries in gun control at the extremes that we should all be able to agree should not be crossed. Once that is established a reasonable discussion can ensue.

My problem with many of the pro-gun people on this site is that they take the ideological stance that any gun control is a violation of their Constitutional rights. To me that is the extreme and, as you say, it is intellectually dishonest and lazy.

The extremes you speak of are behavioral and have nothing to do with what type or how many forearms a person owns.

We already have hundreds if not thousands of laws on the books that lay out what the legal uses of firearms are.

MAybe we should enforce those laws

"We already have hundreds if not thousands of laws on the books that lay out what the legal uses of firearms are.

MAybe we should enforce those laws"

I don't disagree. We may also agree that the discussion should not be about if there should be laws on the use firearms but what should those laws be.

 

[Blues Man]

ok shall not be infringed

Except when your rights infringe on the rights of others.

There is no right that anyone has, that is being infringed or otherwise violated, by someone else being in possession of a weapon.

Your right to carry a weapon to feel safe does not necessarily make me feel safe, my right. Now if there were strict carry rules that involved weapons training you had to take, seeing you carrying a gun might make me safe. If I thought you were at least as well trained as a cop, I'm be all for it.

There are a lot of cops that are not that good with weapons. The gun issue is a tough one. However the criminals drew first blood many decades ago while our government entities played and play political games on the people who follow the laws and rules.

We need train

It doesn't say that, exactly, but it does identify the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and it explicitly forbids government from infringing this right.

Agreed. Question: do you think we should be able to have any weapon we can afford and do whatever we want with them or do you think the right to bear arms is more limited, in other words only some guns are included and only some people get to exercise their right to bear arms.?

How many times do you have to have it explained to you that the mere ownership of an object is not the problem.

We have laws that clearly state what the legal uses of firearms are.

It doesn't matter what firearms a person owns only that the laws regarding the use of those firearms are followed

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You must live in a world where all people are honest and responsible. The world I live in has criminals, gangs, political and religious extremists, children who shoot up their schools for notoriety and suicide, etc.

Once again

There is no justification for curbing the rights of law abiding people because some other people might break the law.

Would you consent to warrantless searches of your home because the cops tell you it will prevent someone else from committing a crime? Would you give up your fifth amendment rights because someone told you that it might prevent a person from committing a crime?

Your ideological purity is noted. Maybe we should remove all speed limits on our roads and trust people will act responsibly and not drive unsafely.

As for warrantless searches, if the people my community decided there was a valid reason that would make us all safer I'd say that is a democracy. I don't see that scenario playing out though.

Here you go again comparing things incorrectly

The speed limit is meant to tell you what is legal for the particular road you are driving on

It doesn't matter if you own a car that can do 140 MPH as long as you drive at the posted speed.

It's the use of the car that matters not what kind of car you own.

If you wanted your analogy to work you would be calling for a law that makes it illegal to own any car that is able to drive faster than the posted speed limit