I swear we need to have some sort of competency test or something before we let idiots have guns but oh well, I know that shit will never happen. It just bugs me I mean when someone accidentally kills themselves that's just natural selection but these fuckers are gonna kill their neighbors
Guns are a right. You can't be deprived of a right until you prove you can't handle it.
Anyways, I'm pretty sure this is a joke, they would've been locked up a long time ago if they really were that stupid.
Just because you have rights doesn't mean you can't lose them. If you (needlessly) murder, you (should) lose your right to life. If you're a fuck with guns, you lose your right to guns.
"You can't be deprived of a right until you prove you can't handle it. " - 'sup GI Joe? A lot of people consider the firearm-related death rate in the US (mostly unjustified) pretty much proof that the population can't handle that right. Just saying.
You can say whatever you want, the rest of the world can have whatever opinion they want too.
Fact of the matter is, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, one of the few that the founders decided is not up for debate. A person can only be denied their rights when a court of law and a jury of their peers decides that the person in question committed a major felony.
Thankfully, the United States is ruled by laws, not "a lot of people". Otherwise the law would be reduced to mob rule, which has never ended well. And don't call me GI Joe unless you're acknowledging my enlistment into the U.S. Army. Otherwise it sounds like you're trivializing me, and that would make it difficult for me to remain civil.
Pray tell, how would you defend life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without effective arms?
Nevermind that the right to own weapons is a liberty.
How can you justify that weapons are a right intrinsic to all living creatures? You do have the right to protect yourself and if that involves firearms, so be it. But firearms, or weapons, in of themselves are not a right.
The constitutional rights are human rights, as far as the founders were concerned. Some even opposed putting rights in a bill because they feared that would make people think they were privileges granted by the government, as opposed to fundamental rights that we waged a war to secure.
So being a human automagically qualifies you to have firearms? Should weapon production be subsidized by the government and every person, big or small, illegal or legal, be given a gun ?
No, felons are exempt from some rights for good reasons, and you have the right to possess them, nobody ever said anything about it being free. That'd be like making food or houses free. Getting the government involved defeats the point almost entirely.
Now, do you have a point that doesn't try to make a straw man of me?
Why don't we go over again why you think firearms are an intrinsic part of humanity, why it should be put on the same level as the right to life and freedom?
It's not firearms themselves, but weapons effective enough to deter tyranny, fight off invaders, and defend life and property from criminals.
Whatever weapons are considered modern are the ones that need to accessible to the law-abiding populace.
Simply put, life and freedom, the latter in particular, don't really mean anything if people don't have weapons that can fight anyone who'd take those things from them.
.
Tl;dr: Effective weapons are imperative to defend life, liberty, and happiness.
Alright, so the three fundamental rights are life liberty happiness. Why can't you say that weapons are a necessity to guarantee these rights, but they are not a right in of themselves. However, since they are needed to defend rights, they are treated as if they were a right?
Pursuit of happiness originally meant owning property, that doesn't mean property should be distributed to everyone.
Also, having the government that the right is supposed to enable us to revolt against also be in charge of distribution would defeat the point.
I'm sorry if I failed to answer your question, but I can't really tell what you're trying to ask.
1. Do we both agree that there are only three fundamental rights: life, liberty, happiness?
If so, these rights must be defendable. In the case of the US, the defense is through strength of arms.
2. Is the right to bear arms an intrinsically human right or only given the protection of rights due to their importance in protecting the fundamental rights?
If the latter,
3. Is it not then better to say that the right to armaments is only due to the values of America, and therefore not a human right but a constitutional right?
Every person on the planet has the right to obtain and bear arms in defense of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
That any law-abiding person is denied this right is an attack on liberty, if not life and happiness as well.
All this talk, and all that needs to be pointed out is the foolishness of waiting until AFTER a tragedy to deny someone the privilege of owning guns.
Automobiles are just as much of a "right" as guns are, and we require citizens to pass a test or two before giving them our blessing, and for good reason. They can be just as deadly a weapon in the wrong, or just plain inexperienced hands.
Not what I was replying to.
chakun missing the point, intentionally or otherwise, didn't warrant me being very clear with my dismissal, so I can see how I may have caused some confusion.
I'm glad you're having fun playing dumb and downthumbing people for not playing along with you, but some of us are rather attached to this fool place called "Reality".
I'd invite you to join us, but, well...I can see it's not your thing.
Laugh, people that are actually that stupid would have lost their guns a long time before they could teach their kid. It's just a staged photo someone thought would be funny.
I just love how anti gun idiots will try to convince people that this is real. Next week you'll probably see this pic with the caption five people killed with a assault weapon with a bump stock. That's the 2 hot words today for anti gunners.
I find it quite funny how people argue privately owned guns are a means to "defend" oneself against the government if worse comes to bad. In a revolution scenario, what do you guys think you can do against the most advanced military power on this planet? That's not going to be like in a movie
I think that if there's a violent revolution that our entirely volunteer and mostly right wing military would back the people.
Speaking as a soldier, I would.
▼
deleted
· 7 years ago
Then why do the citizens need guns? The "mostly right wing military" has guns.
So we can defend ourselves from your Antifa cunts in a couple weeks.
1
deleted
· 7 years ago
In a civilized country, police and eventually army would deal with any attacks on the government and authorities. And with all those right wingers in the army, they should get things done in a wink. Just try and relax, not that you shoot yourself in the foot or something. And don't trust that coke fiend Alex Jones. The 4th of November uprising will probably not going to be as bad as he told you. Aren't these the sorry dopes who doxxed themselves in April this year? Great revolution that's going to be...
Millions of Bernie-bots, inept as they may be, have been doing some serious damage on their nationwide temper tantrum. If they focus their attention on one day and in specific places they will certainly cause havoc. A Jones is a charecter on Youtube, why would I care what he says? The Soros funded provocateurs are the ones saying there will be violence. If some guy tells me he is going to punch me in the face at 2pm on Tuesday I’d be a fool not to be prepared to counterpunch on Tuesday afternoon.
The thing about America is that we don't trust our government. We were born in a revolution and our founders went so far as to say "If we ever fuck up in the future and turn against you or get invaded, use your guns to correct us or fight off the invaders".
The military is currently big and right wing, but we won't be able to respond effectively if the people are put down by government forces before word can spread.
I have no doubt that the feds could easily take down Paul Revere Jr. if nobody has effective enough arms to buy him time.
It's gotten to the point where any confiscation or registration movement would cause me personally to lose faith and rebel.
I swore to defend the constitution above all else.
deleted
· 7 years ago
I can see how a calming voice of reason like Alex Jones is not your compass of sanity.
I'd rather listen to Steven Crowder's content. You see, he isn't a provocative nutcase. I like that about him.
deleted
· 7 years ago
Ah, the guy advertising for himself with "Hippies and Muslims hate me!". You know he and Alex J are really fond of each other, right? In german we say they're "rocking each others balls". He was so super not a provocative nutcase when he went to that women's march in drag. Did your little GI Joe stand to attention when you saw him?
* I'm not using the GI Joe reference to acknowledge you being a part of the troops, but because I think you're a caricature.
Why the fuck do I even bother trying with you?
Oh yeah, because blindly dismissing the other side is the reason politics have been swinging between extremes.
Now, are you going to keep a decent dialogue going or are you going to be part of the problem?
▼
deleted
· 7 years ago
?Keep? a decent dialogue? That would imply we had one in the first place. I thought I was playing a game of whac-a-mole with little toy soldiers popping out instead of moles. So I guess you'd see me as part of the problem.
Antifa are predominantly a bunch of disgruntled Bernie supporters who think they need to start an armed revolution to overthrow trump. Bernie’s campaign sends out daily emails entitled “our revolution”, his intent was to start a political movement, but instead a lynch mob is forming. They claim to be anti fascist but use fascist tactics to try to silence any voice they disagree with. YouTube is full of Antifa videos calling for violent riots in every city November 4. There are vids out there where they are telling each other how to get weapons and how to knife fight and how to combat police tactics. They’re really just a bunch of millennial pricks and leftover hippies throwing temper tantrums.
Well, in the event that our government became an actual tyranny, and not the perceived tyranny that liberals think it is, then we are entitled to rise up and fight against it. It's why the founding fathers gave us the first amendment, and why my fellows and I are so adamant that all these gun control measures are so unacceptable.
I have read snopes articles that I know to be false before but this one is intentionally blind.
deleted
· 7 years ago
I've wasted 20 some precious minutes of my life to see the video and the 13 minutes raw material. What I saw: 3 idiots talking trash, one of them (claiming to have guns in his car but apparently didn't break any laws) handing a screwdriver to the "undercover" guy. And Megan Griffin got "arrested later" for a tazer? Yeah, domestic terrorism indeed. The other guys coming later don't say anything relevant actually, and didn't even hear what the three stooges were discussing, but hey, good enough to expose them as accomplices. My favorite moment was when this Fox13 guy wished Steve "good luck" with his material, a polite way of telling him "Dude, you ain't got jack sh#t, simmer down already" and Steve getting ever more exited about what he really believes is helluva scoop. Seriously? These are the people y'all arming up for? And this is the type of source you build your opinion on? So sad.
They have hundreds of vids posted calling for action, that’s tough to ignore.
1
deleted
· 7 years ago
No, it's super easy to ignore once you realize it's just nonsense. Theres a lot more videos claiming the earth is flat, we're governed by reptiles, the earth is just 5,000 years old and so on, you find those tough to ignore as well? Also youtube is full of roid-raging rightwing nuts - showing actual guns, not just talking about them - hating on the government and fantasizing how they would use these guns against leftist and liberals, why is there no such paranoia about those? Probably because they don't exist in your social media filter bubble, but what to expect from someone who believes a wannabe youtube comedian (actually one of the few self-proclaimed comedians who is even less funny than Amy Schumer) is a news source. Have fun voting Kid Rock for prez once the time is there.
How do you know they aren't using steel backed targets? Granted they shouldn't be setting up a target range in what looks to be a suburban area, but we shouldn't assume that they're being dangerous about it.
It's also her first time with an AR. Do you think she'll never miss a single shot?
9
deleted
· 7 years ago
If "we shouldn't assume that they're being dangerous about it.", why then "shouldn't [they] be setting up a target range in what looks to be a suburban area"? You don't believe that a shooting novice with probably limited physical strength shooting an AK in the direction of a residential neighborhood is a horrible and most absurd idea? You shouldn't even vote, but at least not be allowed to carry a gun.
Seriously, chakun. The stuff that comes out of your keyboard...I can never tell if you're trolling or not.
R. Lee Ermey himself wouldn't shoot in these conditions. One accident or act of God is all it takes for you to have the death of your neighbor or their kids on your conscience for the rest of your life.
Anyways, I'm pretty sure this is a joke, they would've been locked up a long time ago if they really were that stupid.
Fact of the matter is, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, one of the few that the founders decided is not up for debate. A person can only be denied their rights when a court of law and a jury of their peers decides that the person in question committed a major felony.
Thankfully, the United States is ruled by laws, not "a lot of people". Otherwise the law would be reduced to mob rule, which has never ended well. And don't call me GI Joe unless you're acknowledging my enlistment into the U.S. Army. Otherwise it sounds like you're trivializing me, and that would make it difficult for me to remain civil.
Nevermind that the right to own weapons is a liberty.
Now, do you have a point that doesn't try to make a straw man of me?
Whatever weapons are considered modern are the ones that need to accessible to the law-abiding populace.
Simply put, life and freedom, the latter in particular, don't really mean anything if people don't have weapons that can fight anyone who'd take those things from them.
.
Tl;dr: Effective weapons are imperative to defend life, liberty, and happiness.
Also, having the government that the right is supposed to enable us to revolt against also be in charge of distribution would defeat the point.
I'm sorry if I failed to answer your question, but I can't really tell what you're trying to ask.
If so, these rights must be defendable. In the case of the US, the defense is through strength of arms.
2. Is the right to bear arms an intrinsically human right or only given the protection of rights due to their importance in protecting the fundamental rights?
If the latter,
3. Is it not then better to say that the right to armaments is only due to the values of America, and therefore not a human right but a constitutional right?
That any law-abiding person is denied this right is an attack on liberty, if not life and happiness as well.
Automobiles are just as much of a "right" as guns are, and we require citizens to pass a test or two before giving them our blessing, and for good reason. They can be just as deadly a weapon in the wrong, or just plain inexperienced hands.
If you say so, champ...
chakun missing the point, intentionally or otherwise, didn't warrant me being very clear with my dismissal, so I can see how I may have caused some confusion.
I'd invite you to join us, but, well...I can see it's not your thing.
That's a downthumbin'.
Speaking as a soldier, I would.
The military is currently big and right wing, but we won't be able to respond effectively if the people are put down by government forces before word can spread.
I have no doubt that the feds could easily take down Paul Revere Jr. if nobody has effective enough arms to buy him time.
It's gotten to the point where any confiscation or registration movement would cause me personally to lose faith and rebel.
I swore to defend the constitution above all else.
* I'm not using the GI Joe reference to acknowledge you being a part of the troops, but because I think you're a caricature.
Oh yeah, because blindly dismissing the other side is the reason politics have been swinging between extremes.
Now, are you going to keep a decent dialogue going or are you going to be part of the problem?
R. Lee Ermey himself wouldn't shoot in these conditions. One accident or act of God is all it takes for you to have the death of your neighbor or their kids on your conscience for the rest of your life.