Time for Gun Safety Advocates to Abandon Their Strategy

[Flash]

Granted by the Constitution ( federal government ). And as with all rights and privileges, they come with responsibilities also.

My idea of responsibilities and your idea of responsibilities may be different.

It is good that the wording says that the right shall not be infringed or else we would have all kinds of idiots imposing their oppressive ideas of responsibility on us, huh?

 

[Stann]

My idea of responsibilities and your idea of responsibilities may be different.

It is good that the wording says that the right shall not be infringed or else we would have all kinds of idiots imposing their oppressive ideas of responsibility on us, huh?

Responsibilities change with time and circumstances. It doesn't matter what you or I believe what those responsibilities are. That would be up to the government to decide, since they created the right in the first place.

 

[marvin martian]

Responsibilities change with time and circumstances. It doesn't matter what you or I believe what those responsibilities are. That would be up to the government to decide, since they created the right in the first place.

Governments don't create rights.

 

[Stann]

Governments don't create rights.

The Constitution is the basis of our government. Try to argue with that one. Going back to the founding fathers I bet you didn't know that during the American revolution the founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population. The right to own a gun was only allowed if you swore an oath of loyalty to the new government. Just an interesting tibbet in the history of guns in America.

 

[marvin martian]

The Constitution is the basis of our government. Try to argue with that one. Going back to the founding fathers I bet you didn't know that during the American revolution the founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population. The right to own a gun was only allowed if you swore an oath of loyalty to the new government. Just an interesting tibbet in the history of guns in America.

That has nothing to do with the fact that governments don't create (or even grant) rights.

 

[Stann]

My idea of responsibilities and your idea of responsibilities may be different.

It is good that the wording says that the right shall not be infringed or else we would have all kinds of idiots imposing their oppressive ideas of responsibility on us, huh?

The second amendment is misunderstood by many on the right as well as many on the left. And it's best addressed in its entirety, that explains the balance the founding fathers were trying to find. Since most of them feared a federal army, because of Independence failed, they could all be hung by a federal army. That's one of the reasons they preferred that the states create their own militias ( today's national guards ). You see the states didn't get long as they do today. So it was thought that they would never been together to harm the founding fathers in any way.

 

[Stann]

That has nothing to do with the fact that governments don't create (or even grant) rights.

The Constitution is the basis of all of our rights.

 

[Briss]

The Constitution is the basis of all of our rights.

The government's role is to protect my rights. If the government also grants my rights, then I actually have no rights because the government giveth, and the government taketh away, and you're okay with that.

I have a right to protect my home. What do you think about that?

 

[Flash]

Responsibilities change with time and circumstances. It doesn't matter what you or I believe what those responsibilities are. That would be up to the government to decide, since they created the right in the first place.

Actually it is not up to the government.

The Bill of Rights is what protects us from government oppression. The government (think DC in Heller) cannot infringe upon those rights. Especially one that specifically says it can't be infringed.

 

[Flash]

The second amendment is misunderstood by many on the right as well as many on the left. And it's best addressed in its entirety, that explains the balance the founding fathers were trying to find. Since most of them feared a federal army, because of Independence failed, they could all be hung by a federal army. That's one of the reasons they preferred that the states create their own militias ( today's national guards ). You see the states didn't get long as they do today. So it was thought that they would never been together to harm the founding fathers in any way.

Sorry but you continue to be confused.

The Heller case clearly ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and is not dependent upon membership to any organization.

 

[Stann]

The government's role is to protect my rights. If the government also grants my rights, then I actually have no rights because the government giveth, and the government taketh away, and you're okay with that.

I have a right to protect my home. What do you think about that?

Everyone has the right to protect their homes. You should read up on English law that was in effect during the colonial period. That is the reason, the Constitution of the United States of America is one of the most important documents in the world.

 

[Briss]

Everyone has the right to protect their homes.

Exactly!

 

[marvin martian]

The Constitution is the basis of all of our rights.

No it's not. It enumerates our rights, and constrains the government's ability to violate those rights. The rights themselves are natural.

 

[Stann]

Exactly!

That wasn't true under British colonial law. A person was supposed to retreat from such a situation. You would have been charged with a crime.

 

[Flash]

 

[Briss]

That wasn't true under British colonial law. A person was supposed to retreat from such a situation. You would have been charged with a crime.

So, if someone breaks into my house, I should assume that they mean only to take some stuff, and that they mean no harm to my wife and kids?

I should run?

 

[Stann]

View attachment 657996

Drag shows usually involve adult material in their acts. So in most cases not appropriate for children.

 

[Flash]

Drag shows usually involve adult material in their acts. So in most cases not appropriate for children.

Didn't you see the pictures all over the internet today of the kids in LA that were forced to attend the filthy ass Gay Day Parade?

Or the schools and libraries that brought in Drag Queens to read stories to the kids?

 

[2aguy]

Seat belt safety laws affect everyone, it's for the common good. Most states have helmet laws if you ride a motorcycle a very sensible precaution because head injuries are usually severe and occur with a lot more frequency if you ride a motorcycle. In general I do not like blanket laws, because there are always exceptions to the rules. But since we are only human beings and it's possible for any one of us to make a horrible mistake with the use of guns, those most prone to become a mass shooters should be targeted. Raising the age on assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons to 21 is a very good idea. As I said before the hormone levels of 18 to 20 year olds is astronomical. It's a wonder any of them could think straight and act normal. There is a sharp drop off in these levels at age 21. If you compared both graphs like I asked you to then you would understand the problem too.

We already have Extreme protection laws for nuts......the family, friends, school and local police did not use them......he was also torturing and murdering cats, and shooting people with a BB gun..both of which are arresting offenses...that they did not use...

It wasn't the gun, it was the people around this guy who didn't do what they should have done...that and the local police failing to do their job.

Again......about 26 million 18-23 years old in the U.S.....two committed mass public shootings......

No....this is a rare event....which is best addressed by securing the schools and having those closest to the dangerously mentally ill notifying authorities and the authorities actually doing something......arrest or committment..both of which pop on background checks....sealing off that avenue...if we are going to have Federal Background checks, it would help if the government put these nuts in the system......

Banning the most common guns based on less than 10 criminals a year is really stupid.......

In 2021 we had 6 mass public shooters...out of over 330 million people......

Your solution is stupid.....and pointless.

 

[2aguy]

Seat belt safety laws affect everyone, it's for the common good. Most states have helmet laws if you ride a motorcycle a very sensible precaution because head injuries are usually severe and occur with a lot more frequency if you ride a motorcycle. In general I do not like blanket laws, because there are always exceptions to the rules. But since we are only human beings and it's possible for any one of us to make a horrible mistake with the use of guns, those most prone to become a mass shooters should be targeted. Raising the age on assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons to 21 is a very good idea. As I said before the hormone levels of 18 to 20 year olds is astronomical. It's a wonder any of them could think straight and act normal. There is a sharp drop off in these levels at age 21. If you compared both graphs like I asked you to then you would understand the problem too.

Again...as my data show.....the majority of mass public shooters are 21 or over.............making your point pretty silly.