Quote:

---

I cannot see a number of things in there, in particular property. nor do I see guns.

---

Because you don't understand that the pursuit of happiness was property rights . Look it up . I don't have time to play word games.. the end of the world is hours away. I said that everyone has a right to defend their right.. that's where guns come in.

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

---

I said that everyone has a right to defend their right.. that's where guns come in.

---

So, you're from the wing that thinks assault rifles can defend against Apache helicopters and 50 caliber machine guns, huh?

Alrightee, then.

Excon

Didn't you already point out that the greatest army in the world has issues against comparatively simple unsophisticated weapons ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Wow it's been a long time since I took this quiz. A truth is a fact. A self evident truth is so obvious that it's well understood without having to provide proof . To save time I'll offer that an unalienable right is a natural right as recognized by the thinkers of the Enlightement What's your point ?

---

[QUOTE =tombder55;3351240]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness

[/QUOTE]


You appear to have posted contradictory statements in terms of unalienable rights. Where do these types of rights come from according to the Enlightenment time you are talking about? From the Creator? No.The idea was to reject the Creator as an architect of natural rights.

Tut

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

---

didn't you already point out that the greatest army in the world has issues against comparatively simple unsophisticated weapons ?

---

That was me.. But the unsophisticated weapons I was TALKING about were IED's - not puny assault rifles.

Now, I understand that IF the government attacked you, you'd DITCH the rifles and GET a couple tanks, and I'd be right there with you... But that kind of belies your need for assault weapons at all.

Or, are you still going to maintain the fantasy that having an assault rifle in your closet is DEFENDING the country??

Excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

[QUOTE =tombder55;3351240]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness

---

You appear to have posted contradictory statements in terms of unalienable rights. Where do these types of rights come from according to the Enlightenment time you are talking about? From the Creator? No.The idea was to reject the Creator as an architect of natural rights.

Tut[/QUOTE]

Have a nice day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

That was me.. But the unsophisticated weapons I was TALKING about were IED's - not puny assault rifles.

Now, I understand that IF the government attacked you, you'd DITCH the rifles and GET a couple tanks, and I'd be right there with you... But that kinda belies your need for assault weapons at all.

Or, are you still gonna maintain the fantasy that having an assault rifle in your closet is DEFENDING the country???

excon

---

Defending the country ? Not necessarily . Protecting my life and property ? Yes.

You will be like that fellow in Syria on the news, desolation all around him but he won't leave his property

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

---

protecting my life and property ? Yes.

---

Then you won't need a 100 round magazine. I'll bet you're defending your family FINE right now WITHOUT one.

Excon

Well Nanny Bloomberg seems to think a gun shouldn't need more than 3 rounds because if you can't hit a deer in that many shots you're a lousy shot. It's not about hunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Then you won't need a 100 round magazine. I'll bet you're defending your family FINE right now WITHOUT one.

excon

---

I've already said that I have no problem with limiting rounds in magazines.

How about limiting them to single shot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

How about limiting them to single shot?

---

Ball and powder no doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Ball and powder no doubt.

---

Heck, let's just get rid of them all and be done with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Heck, let's just get rid of them all and be done with it.

---

That would be a firm negative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Ball and powder no doubt.

---

What ever turns you on, you should follow the founding fathers in everything, but seriously, hunting; you should only need one well aimed shot, and ditto for an intruder, if you have more than that you are screwed anyway, and not every confrontation will be the 400lb guy it would take a clip to bring down

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

what ever turns you on, you should follow the founding fathers in everything, but seriously, hunting; you should only need one well aimed shot, and ditto for an intruder, if you have more than that you are screwed anyway, and not every confrontation will be the 400lb guy it would take a clip to bring down

---

How much hunting have you actually done or have you ever dealt with a home invasion ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

How much hunting have you actually done or have you ever dealt with a home invasion ?

---

I've done a little hunting and no, not home invasion just a siege, state protection group and all that. We don't have many home invasions here, they seem to happen among ethnic groups

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

have a nice day.

---

Don't be like that Tom. I might be able to help a bit.

It doesn't really matter that a Creator is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but not in the Constitution. When they give differing accounts of the origin of liberty we can always say that the Declaration of Independence is not an actual constitutional document. It is in fact, just what it says it is. Namely, a justification for the rejection of British rule.

If we put aside this document ( for this purpose) then we are not subject to the criticism we are trying to claim that all rights are God given rights. Clearly the Enlightenment thinkers of the time, notably Locke, would have course reject the idea that we are in any way benefactors of Divine rights. Instead they preferred the idea of natural rights.

Locke claimed that natural rights are those rights that men enjoy in a state of nature before the advent of organized society and its legal system. Leaving aside any problems with this claim the important point is that Lock's account is a prescriptive explanation for rights. This is regardless of any move on the part of Locke to provide us with a descriptive explanation for rights. In other words Lock is saying that men ought to have these rights.

Tut

You can't help Tom he is like the NRA guns are an answer to everything, right now they are running scared and so they should be, they have encouraged these weapons in the community