Gun Grabbers, Riddle Me This...

[BasicHumanUnit]

I'm for civilian gun ownership.

I would be totally against any general move that involves civilian use of arms against people because of their sexual preferences as I do believe is the case with the vast majority of gun owners.

You've fallen for the propaganda and hype that we're savages. lol

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, a human with a bigger body can kill better than a smaller person. However a gun increases the danger far more disproportionately than a larger body.

Don't **** with people. Violence is deadly. Don't do it.


Don't start nothin'. Won't be nothin'.

And the way you talk about guns make it OBVIOUS you support a complete ban and confiscation. No gun is acceptable to you.

Oh, oh, the way I talk makes it obvious.

******* hell dude, you're like Super Mario making assumption triple jumps and shit.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

fruitcakes,

You call gun owners homophobic.......

Gun owners call you Hoplophobic.......

 

[boedicca]

There are 6 million NRA members in the U.S. If law-abiding people are going on shooting rampages, statistically quite a few of them should be NRA members.

Linky?

This is your argument... why do you expect me to provide links for your argument?

This is another typical tactic of people without decent arguments.

You ignore what is being spoken about and then start discussing something you read somewhere that you're comfortable arguing with.

It's pathetic.

Here, try this, find a link where I said anything about NRA members going around killing people. Come on.

You mused about what would happen if law-abiding gun owners suddenly decided not to be law-abiding...that is a smear that gun owners can't be trusted.

If that were the case, with all of the animus towards the NRA, there would be well publicized statistics regarding NRA members suddenly deciding not to be law-abiding, etc.

You can't provide any such thing.

But, I am still waiting for your body count estimate when the police conduct seizures of weapons from gun owners.

Can gun owners not be trusted?

Let's see.



Hear the cheering in the background?

So basically you're telling me a law should not be enacted because certain members of society would decide to become criminals because of it?

Huh?

So we should not ban murder because some people are going to murder anyway?

Absurd.

Or, there's another way to interpret that.

Don't deprive me of inalienable rights or I will do what the founders did and revoke consent to be governed by said government....by force if necessary.

You know, it's funny.

There's something called "compartmentalization". What this essentially means is that people put every political issue into a separate box.

It means that people can argue issue one way, and then turn around 180 degrees and use an argument that is totally contrary to the first argument.

So, on the 2A it's "you can't take away our rights".

On the issue of gay marriage it's "take away their rights" (which in turn takes away YOUR right because it then becomes a PRIVILEGE and not a right.

As for there being an inalienable right, the US is the ONLY country in the world to say there's a right to a specific man made object.

Some people would call it a God given right, funny, did guns exist when God decided to make humans?

More fake moral and constitutional equivalency. There is nothing that prevents states from making gay marriage legal. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority over marriages, but it is quite specific about the right to own ARMS.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Anarchy is total freedom. Is a person freer in anarchy or are they freer in a system which limits some of their total freedoms?

Well, first off, anarchy is impossible. It's like pure chlorine released into the atmosphere. Chlorine quickly binds with other molecules becomes something else.

As soon as there is a dispute between two or more people living under anarchy, the state is formed. Government is formed.

So, this is purely hypothetical. Government is inevitable.

How much liberty am I willing to surrender for security? As little as possible. Liberty first. More freedom, not less.

What you are proposing regarding firearms is NOT as little as possible. Not even close. Not even in 1934.

I, like many other responsible Americans, could own full-automatic weapons, RBGs, Tanks, and even nukes, and never harm a soul. Limiting my possession of mere semi-autos is NOT doing as little as possible.

I have done nothing wrong and do not deserve to have my liberty stripped or limited. That is tyranny.

If free speech could cause some people to do violent things, isn't free speech too dangerous? Shouldn't we just kill that right? It's too dangerous, right?

 

[boedicca]

Good luck getting Americans to turn in their guns. So, when they don't, how do you plan to get their guns?
Let's say half refuse to comply. Do you send in swat teams or the cellphone police?

The Myth..."Gun confiscation would never work, we have a Constitutional Right!"
(As if your rights haven't been shit on repeatedly already)

1). Turn public opinion against gun ownership
2). Incrementally outlaw one class of guns, then another, then another....always making the guns a horrible evil
3). Start in states already 2nd Amendment unfriendly.
4). Pass Federal Laws threatening unbearably severe consequences for NOT turning them in (80% will)
5). Use ANY social crisis as an excuse and get people used to heavily armed government forces intruding
6). Offer large rewards to those who turn in ANYONE known to have guns or SUSPECTED of having guns.

My point is that your mistake is underestimating the enemy.

I'm most certainly not underestimated the enemy. I'm just asking how many people they think they are willing to have killed while enforcing their Gun Ban agenda.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Oh, oh, the way I talk makes it obvious.

******* hell dude, you're like Super Mario making assumption triple jumps and shit.

You said that the use of a gun by a small person to defend herself against a big meat-head dude is TOO much power or force. I can imagine NO OTHER scenario, short of defense against armed assault, where use of a firearm in self defense would be justified given the facts. If that level of force is too much for you, there is likely NO scenario where armed self defense is acceptable.

Am I wrong?

Is my logical deduction flawed?

What scenario would be acceptable for self defense with a firearm? Is there one?

 

[MisterBeale]

Scuze moi, but responsible and lawful gun owners save lives.

The price you were perfectly happy to pay:

The Names and Faces of the Florida School Shooting Victims

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I'm most certainly not underestimated the enemy. I'm just asking how many people they think they are willing to have killed while enforcing their Gun Ban agenda.

I would suppose at that point, they would have successfully have us deemed "terrorists" and America's No1 threat.

That said....I'm not sure they'd care how many "terrorists" they killed.

I think it's FAR better we fight now through our voices and protests......instead of waiting until it comes to that. Unfortunately, look around....reality is only the anti-rights people are making ANY noise at all.

You know the saying.....
All that's required for evil people to prevail.......(you know the rest)

 

[Missourian]

Imagine you have a gun because of easy availability of guns. Yet some kid also gets a gun easily and then shoots up a school killing 17 people.

The easy availability for YOU cost other people their lives.

There is no causal connection with my having a gun to the kid shooting up a school. There are a number of intervening causes that separate my mere possession of a gun from the criminal act of another.

How far can we take that many levels of causal connection on other issues that can **** over your rights? We could make the same arguments about free speech and shut it all down. The standard you are setting is goose-stepping authoritarian NAZI shit.

Do you like ANY manner of liberty? Wtat the ****?

See, what you're doing is compartmentalizing the issue.

You're saying "I have a gun, that I have a gun doesn't hurt anyone"

In itself it's true. But on its own it hides the other facts.

In other countries there are underlying issues that cause crime. And yet other First World countries don't have the murder rate the US does, they don't have school shootings happening every month, they don't have all of this.

You talk about liberty. What is liberty? Freedom to do ANYTHING you like? No. You can't murder people. You can't steal from people. Each of these has an impact.

Guns in the hands of humans makes humans more dangerous. That's a simple fact.

Rights are limited all the time.

In Switzerland they're not having this talk. Why?

You are right in that there are other issues here. The whole reason why the gun issue is at the top of the table is because the two political parties have "their issues". Abortion, guns, they're easy, they separate the two parties while at the same time they're essentially scratching each others' backs keeping the system good for them and bad for everyone else.

So we're back to what we spoke about before, nothing will change without a change in the system. The kids stand up and protest because they've been brainwashed into thinking that the biggest issue is guns, when it's not.

However if they can change the gun issue, perhaps they can change everything else. Perhaps.

European countries never had a murder rate like ours, even when they had a right to own them similar to our own. And when they lost that right...their murder rates didn't decrease any more than ours even though our gun rights have expanded.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

European countries never had a murder rate like ours, even when they had a right to own them similar to our own. And when they lost that right...their murder rates didn't decrease any more than ours even though our gun rights have expanded.

For all their "diversity" talk in Europe, the US is still more "Diverse" culturally.
Except that with Germany leading, they're working hard to Ketchup(sp).

Could that be why we have a higher murder rate? Course, the USA has more people than most European countries. I guess the numbers can be finagled depending on the agenda

 

[Tom Horn]

The price you were perfectly happy to pay:

The Names and Faces of the Florida School Shooting Victims

It figures this piece of shit vampire would push his communist gun-grab agenda on the bodies of dead kids.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is your argument... why do you expect me to provide links for your argument?

This is another typical tactic of people without decent arguments.

You ignore what is being spoken about and then start discussing something you read somewhere that you're comfortable arguing with.

It's pathetic.

Here, try this, find a link where I said anything about NRA members going around killing people. Come on.

You mused about what would happen if law-abiding gun owners suddenly decided not to be law-abiding...that is a smear that gun owners can't be trusted.

If that were the case, with all of the animus towards the NRA, there would be well publicized statistics regarding NRA members suddenly deciding not to be law-abiding, etc.

You can't provide any such thing.

But, I am still waiting for your body count estimate when the police conduct seizures of weapons from gun owners.

Can gun owners not be trusted?

Let's see.



Hear the cheering in the background?

So basically you're telling me a law should not be enacted because certain members of society would decide to become criminals because of it?

Huh?

So we should not ban murder because some people are going to murder anyway?

Absurd.

Or, there's another way to interpret that.

Don't deprive me of inalienable rights or I will do what the founders did and revoke consent to be governed by said government....by force if necessary.

You know, it's funny.

There's something called "compartmentalization". What this essentially means is that people put every political issue into a separate box.

It means that people can argue issue one way, and then turn around 180 degrees and use an argument that is totally contrary to the first argument.

So, on the 2A it's "you can't take away our rights".

On the issue of gay marriage it's "take away their rights" (which in turn takes away YOUR right because it then becomes a PRIVILEGE and not a right.

As for there being an inalienable right, the US is the ONLY country in the world to say there's a right to a specific man made object.

Some people would call it a God given right, funny, did guns exist when God decided to make humans?

More fake moral and constitutional equivalency. There is nothing that prevents states from making gay marriage legal. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority over marriages, but it is quite specific about the right to own ARMS.

I see you don't get it. What a shame.

 

[JBond]

There's no way in hell gun seizures will ever happen.

It will happen. It is a reality. Child props and useful idiots will ensure it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

During the current Virtue Signaling Preening Fest to promote Mo Bettta Gun Control, the "solution" of mandatory gun seizures (the Australia Plan) is frequently mentioned.

In other news, a 22 year old man was shot to death by police for holding a cellphone in his back yard.

So, Riddle Me This:

If police are so trigger happy that they will shoot to death a man holding a cellphone because he might have a weapon, what is your estimate of the body count when the same police go around trying to seize 300 million guns across the country?

How does this figure compare to the average number of students killed by mass shooters each year?

it is odd that on one hand they hate the police being armed

while on the other hand the want the police to be the only ones armed

and that those armed men are to go around and disarm others at gunpoint

does not seem to be too reasoned out

 

[MisterBeale]

You mused about what would happen if law-abiding gun owners suddenly decided not to be law-abiding...that is a smear that gun owners can't be trusted.

If that were the case, with all of the animus towards the NRA, there would be well publicized statistics regarding NRA members suddenly deciding not to be law-abiding, etc.

You can't provide any such thing.

But, I am still waiting for your body count estimate when the police conduct seizures of weapons from gun owners.

Can gun owners not be trusted?

Let's see.



Hear the cheering in the background?

So basically you're telling me a law should not be enacted because certain members of society would decide to become criminals because of it?

Huh?

So we should not ban murder because some people are going to murder anyway?

Absurd.

Or, there's another way to interpret that.

Don't deprive me of inalienable rights or I will do what the founders did and revoke consent to be governed by said government....by force if necessary.

You know, it's funny.

There's something called "compartmentalization". What this essentially means is that people put every political issue into a separate box.

It means that people can argue issue one way, and then turn around 180 degrees and use an argument that is totally contrary to the first argument.

So, on the 2A it's "you can't take away our rights".

On the issue of gay marriage it's "take away their rights" (which in turn takes away YOUR right because it then becomes a PRIVILEGE and not a right.

As for there being an inalienable right, the US is the ONLY country in the world to say there's a right to a specific man made object.

Some people would call it a God given right, funny, did guns exist when God decided to make humans?

More fake moral and constitutional equivalency. There is nothing that prevents states from making gay marriage legal. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority over marriages, but it is quite specific about the right to own ARMS.

I see you don't get it. What a shame.

No, actually, it is YOU that doesn't get it. One has to do with legal rights, the other, enshrined in the Constitution, has to do with natural rights.

Marriage is an institution created by either a religious bureaucracy or a government bureaucracy and defined in anyway they wish to define it.

The right to self-defense has long been understood as a natural right, and can only be suppressed by the power of tyranny and a police state.

Ideally, we should dissolve most of the military, and most men should arm themselves to keep this nation free.

If we did this, we could end the Pentagon's wasteful spending.

We could probably cut the military spending in half if we went with the old ways for doing things;

(And resolve this stupid Gun Control debate at the same time)

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense

By Saul Cornell

Saul Cornell is a professor of history at Fordham University. He is one of the nation’s leading authorities on early American constitutional thought, and the author of A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America.

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense


"Rather than close the book on historical argument about the meaning of the Second Amendment, Heller has elevated the importance of history to future gun litigation. “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment,” Justice Scalia wrote in Heller, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.” Justice Scalia’s formulation of the scope of the right to bear arms seemed to suggest that if a regulation had deep historical roots, it would be considered “presumptively lawful.” Understanding the history of firearms regulation seems likely to be crucial to the resolution of future litigation on gun rights and gun control.

It seems unlikely that any significant piece of gun regulation able to survive the political process would ever be struck down on Second Amendment grounds. Handgun bans clearly are out of bounds according to Heller, but hardly any other gun laws have been struck down in the wake of the decision. Over seven hundred cases have been tried, and few regulations have failed to pass constitutional muster. The politics of gun control and gun rights remains divisive. Federal gun regulation seems stalled. There has been considerable activity at the state level, but two opposite trends have emerged. Pro-gun states have expanded gun rights and pro-gun regulation states have passed new, more stringent laws. Although the subject of the Second Amendment and gun regulation continue to inspire vigorous public debate, the actual legal impact of Heller thus far has been quite modest. Although no challenges to recent state gun laws have been mounted, these seem unlikely to prevail. If history is any guide, states will continue to have considerable latitude to legislate in this area as long as laws do not interfere with the right to use a handgun in the home for purposes of lawful self-defense. Courts have not rushed to strike down gun regulations after Heller and there is no indication that things will be much different in the future."

 

[frigidweirdo]

Can gun owners not be trusted?

Let's see.



Hear the cheering in the background?

So basically you're telling me a law should not be enacted because certain members of society would decide to become criminals because of it?

Huh?

So we should not ban murder because some people are going to murder anyway?

Absurd.

Or, there's another way to interpret that.

Don't deprive me of inalienable rights or I will do what the founders did and revoke consent to be governed by said government....by force if necessary.

You know, it's funny.

There's something called "compartmentalization". What this essentially means is that people put every political issue into a separate box.

It means that people can argue issue one way, and then turn around 180 degrees and use an argument that is totally contrary to the first argument.

So, on the 2A it's "you can't take away our rights".

On the issue of gay marriage it's "take away their rights" (which in turn takes away YOUR right because it then becomes a PRIVILEGE and not a right.

As for there being an inalienable right, the US is the ONLY country in the world to say there's a right to a specific man made object.

Some people would call it a God given right, funny, did guns exist when God decided to make humans?

More fake moral and constitutional equivalency. There is nothing that prevents states from making gay marriage legal. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority over marriages, but it is quite specific about the right to own ARMS.

I see you don't get it. What a shame.

No, actually, it is YOU that doesn't get it. One has to do with legal rights, the other, enshrined in the Constitution, has to do with natural rights.

Marriage is an institution created by either a religious bureaucracy or a government bureaucracy and defined in anyway they wish to define it.

The right to self-defense has long been understood as a natural right, and can only be suppressed by the power of tyranny and a police state.

Ideally, we should dissolve most of the military, and most men should arm themselves to keep this nation free.

If we did this, we could end the Pentagon's wasteful spending.

We could probably cut the military spending in half if we went with the old ways for doing things;

(And resolve this stupid Gun Control debate at the same time)

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense

By Saul Cornell

Saul Cornell is a professor of history at Fordham University. He is one of the nation’s leading authorities on early American constitutional thought, and the author of A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America.

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense


"Rather than close the book on historical argument about the meaning of the Second Amendment, Heller has elevated the importance of history to future gun litigation. “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment,” Justice Scalia wrote in Heller, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.” Justice Scalia’s formulation of the scope of the right to bear arms seemed to suggest that if a regulation had deep historical roots, it would be considered “presumptively lawful.” Understanding the history of firearms regulation seems likely to be crucial to the resolution of future litigation on gun rights and gun control.

It seems unlikely that any significant piece of gun regulation able to survive the political process would ever be struck down on Second Amendment grounds. Handgun bans clearly are out of bounds according to Heller, but hardly any other gun laws have been struck down in the wake of the decision. Over seven hundred cases have been tried, and few regulations have failed to pass constitutional muster. The politics of gun control and gun rights remains divisive. Federal gun regulation seems stalled. There has been considerable activity at the state level, but two opposite trends have emerged. Pro-gun states have expanded gun rights and pro-gun regulation states have passed new, more stringent laws. Although the subject of the Second Amendment and gun regulation continue to inspire vigorous public debate, the actual legal impact of Heller thus far has been quite modest. Although no challenges to recent state gun laws have been mounted, these seem unlikely to prevail. If history is any guide, states will continue to have considerable latitude to legislate in this area as long as laws do not interfere with the right to use a handgun in the home for purposes of lawful self-defense. Courts have not rushed to strike down gun regulations after Heller and there is no indication that things will be much different in the future."

Natural rights huh?

What's natural about a gun? Er... nothing.

Now you're talking about the right to self defense. Why?

The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with self defense. You can defend yourself with a gun. Does that mean the 2A protects TVs as well? You could protect yourself with a TV by throwing it at someone.

Don't start mixing things that are mixed just because it's convenient for you.

Ideally.... well, sorry, but ideal doesn't work when you have rich people wanting to **** people over in foreign countries. They need cannon fodder that's willing to give up their lives so a rich person can buy another helicopter.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

On the issue of gay marriage it's "take away their rights" (which in turn takes away YOUR right because it then becomes a PRIVILEGE and not a right.

This is where someone like me kicks your figurative ass. I am a liberal. I support gay marriage rights. Actually, marriage is nothing more than a contract. People of the same sex can contract with one another. Why is it different with marriage?

You, like the Jesus Nazis who hate gays, have selective principles of liberty. You only support liberty when it effects you.

The point being made is that MANY PEOPLE who are pro-gun are anti-gay marriage. Whether you are or aren't isn't really the issue here.

Do you agree with the statement that many people who shout out about their right to own weapons, also shout out that gay people should not marry?

It’s accurate to say that for the most part conservatives seek to deny gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law, in violation of the Constitution – advocating for the wrongheaded notion that the states should ‘decide’ such matters.

Yet conservatives are hostile to “states’ rights” when it comes to regulating firearms, opposing state measures to place restrictions on AR 15s, for example.

If states should have the ‘right’ to deny gay Americans access to state marriage law, then they should likewise have the ‘right’ to deny gunowners access to AR 15s – conservatives can’t have it both ways.

Of course, the states are subject to the Constitution and its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts, both with regard to the 14th and Second Amendments, and may not enact measures repugnant to the case law of either Amendment.

And it’s important to note that there is a significant difference between seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law and seeking to deny gunowners access to AR 15s: the former is un-Constitutional, the latter is not.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Welcome to the ALT-Right WeakWhyte Agenda!

 

[MisterBeale]

Or, there's another way to interpret that.

Don't deprive me of inalienable rights or I will do what the founders did and revoke consent to be governed by said government....by force if necessary.

You know, it's funny.

There's something called "compartmentalization". What this essentially means is that people put every political issue into a separate box.

It means that people can argue issue one way, and then turn around 180 degrees and use an argument that is totally contrary to the first argument.

So, on the 2A it's "you can't take away our rights".

On the issue of gay marriage it's "take away their rights" (which in turn takes away YOUR right because it then becomes a PRIVILEGE and not a right.

As for there being an inalienable right, the US is the ONLY country in the world to say there's a right to a specific man made object.

Some people would call it a God given right, funny, did guns exist when God decided to make humans?

More fake moral and constitutional equivalency. There is nothing that prevents states from making gay marriage legal. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority over marriages, but it is quite specific about the right to own ARMS.

I see you don't get it. What a shame.

No, actually, it is YOU that doesn't get it. One has to do with legal rights, the other, enshrined in the Constitution, has to do with natural rights.

Marriage is an institution created by either a religious bureaucracy or a government bureaucracy and defined in anyway they wish to define it.

The right to self-defense has long been understood as a natural right, and can only be suppressed by the power of tyranny and a police state.

Ideally, we should dissolve most of the military, and most men should arm themselves to keep this nation free.

If we did this, we could end the Pentagon's wasteful spending.

We could probably cut the military spending in half if we went with the old ways for doing things;

(And resolve this stupid Gun Control debate at the same time)

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense

By Saul Cornell

Saul Cornell is a professor of history at Fordham University. He is one of the nation’s leading authorities on early American constitutional thought, and the author of A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America.

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense


"Rather than close the book on historical argument about the meaning of the Second Amendment, Heller has elevated the importance of history to future gun litigation. “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment,” Justice Scalia wrote in Heller, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.” Justice Scalia’s formulation of the scope of the right to bear arms seemed to suggest that if a regulation had deep historical roots, it would be considered “presumptively lawful.” Understanding the history of firearms regulation seems likely to be crucial to the resolution of future litigation on gun rights and gun control.

It seems unlikely that any significant piece of gun regulation able to survive the political process would ever be struck down on Second Amendment grounds. Handgun bans clearly are out of bounds according to Heller, but hardly any other gun laws have been struck down in the wake of the decision. Over seven hundred cases have been tried, and few regulations have failed to pass constitutional muster. The politics of gun control and gun rights remains divisive. Federal gun regulation seems stalled. There has been considerable activity at the state level, but two opposite trends have emerged. Pro-gun states have expanded gun rights and pro-gun regulation states have passed new, more stringent laws. Although the subject of the Second Amendment and gun regulation continue to inspire vigorous public debate, the actual legal impact of Heller thus far has been quite modest. Although no challenges to recent state gun laws have been mounted, these seem unlikely to prevail. If history is any guide, states will continue to have considerable latitude to legislate in this area as long as laws do not interfere with the right to use a handgun in the home for purposes of lawful self-defense. Courts have not rushed to strike down gun regulations after Heller and there is no indication that things will be much different in the future."

Natural rights huh?

What's natural about a gun? Er... nothing.

Now you're talking about the right to self defense. Why?

The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with self defense. You can defend yourself with a gun. Does that mean the 2A protects TVs as well? You could protect yourself with a TV by throwing it at someone.

Don't start mixing things that are mixed just because it's convenient for you.

Ideally.... well, sorry, but ideal doesn't work when you have rich people wanting to **** people over in foreign countries. They need cannon fodder that's willing to give up their lives so a rich person can buy another helicopter.

Humans use their brains, where other species use what they are born with.

Saying something as stupid as "What's natural about a gun?" Is as dumb as saying, "What's natural about clothing?"

Humans use our intelligence to manipulate our environment to serve us. We need to create things to cloth, house, feed and protect us.

THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE IS A NATURAL RIGHT.