 |
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.Quote:
I cannot see a number of things in there, in particular property. nor do I see guns.
Hello again, tom:
So, you're from the wing that thinks assault rifles can defend against Apache helicopters and 50 caliber machine guns, huh?Quote:
I said that everyone has a right to defend their right.. that's where guns come in.
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
[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:
That was me.. But the unsophisticated weapons I was TALKING about were IED's - not puny assault rifles.Quote:
didn't you already point out that the greatest army in the world has issues against comparatively simple unsophisticated weapons ?
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
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.
Defending the country ? Not necessarily . Protecting my life and property ? Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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:
Then you won't need a 100 round magazine. I'll bet you're defending your family FINE right now WITHOUT one.Quote:
protecting my life and property ? Yes.
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.
I've already said that I have no problem with limiting rounds in magazines.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
How about limiting them to single shot?
Ball and powder no doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Heck, let's just get rid of them all and be done with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
That would be a firm negative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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 downQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
How much hunting have you actually done or have you ever dealt with a home invasion ?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
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 groupsQuote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
And again I get to debate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Ok the founders ;even the ones like Jefferson (who still believed in the concept of "nature's god",were men who lived before Darwin. It would've never occurred to them to separate natural law from a creator .
And where is God in the Constitution ? It is in the Ratification Clause (Article VII)
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, [/I]
The LORD referred to is not the King of England. The phrase "in the year of our Lord" in the Constitution replaced"in the year of our reign" use by kings in royal decrees.
Also ,in the Preamble the phrase "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" was nothing less than linking the governing document with the document of principles that is the Declaration of Independence.
Here's a flashback from 2000... back then the libs had no problem with the NRA proposal of putting more cops in the schools .Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Clinton Pledges Funds to Add Police to Schools - Los Angeles Times
This was one year after the Columbine shootings . There was at that time an active ban on "assault rifles " .
Hello tom:
Like your right wing brethren, you're using the tragedy to BASH the opposition INSTEAD of finding a meaningful ANSWER to our problem.. I suppose if my party had been wasted like YOURS was, I'd try to resurrect something too.
But, your views have been repudiated. The country thinks we should be doing LESS to women. Your party thinks it should do MORE. The country thinks we should be LESS mean to the undocumented. Your party thinks it should do MORE.
I could go on, and on, and on. But, my point is, the country thinks we should have LESS guns, and LESS magazines, and your party thinks we should have MORE.
You guys are OUT of STEP. We've moved "Forward", to coin a phrase. Gun control WILL happen. I can't IMAGINE that you don't get the MOOD of the country... On second thought, you don't LISTEN to the MOOD of the country.
excon
Hello again,
As we've discussed in the past, I'm an adherent to the belief that an ARMED society, is a POLITE society. What I DON'T know, is whether an ARMED society, is a SAFE society.
I'm beginning to think it's NOT.
excon
My party ? Why don't you start your efforts in the inner cities of America where the loss of life in the Connecticut suburb is a typical weekend . You want to start controlling guns.. then go after the illegal ones used routinely in New Orleans ,Jacksonville ,Newark and Chi-town. But you won' t because your;e afraid that you would trample on some gangbanger's rights .
The country mourns Connecticut and gives a collective yawn to those weekly tragedies. So spare me this sudden discovery that guns in the wrong hands are unsafe .
Hello again, tom:
Now, I'm NOT a student of history, like you are. But, there's a curb on the First Amendment that essentially says that you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater. I don't know if that was a REAL case or just a metaphor, but the CURBS are REAL.
I'll just BET that when liberals proposed those curbs, that conservatives yelled about it, kind of like they're yelling today.. But, reason prevailed, and we have a CURB on the First Amendment. And the sky didn't fall.
excon
Again you make the false claim that I am speaking in absolutes while on this thread alone there are countless examples of where I said I am not. BTW ;most free speech restrictions are oppressive so the exception you cite is not the rule.
The 'shouting fire 'example is a metaphor that was used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1919 Schenck v. United States decision. He was wrong in his ruling regardless of the metaphor . (what a surprise... a bad SCOTUS decision!) It was in support of the Wilson 1918 Sedition Act. Holmes said that the act was permissible because protests against WWI were a clear and present danger to the government recruiting effort . The metaphor also only applies to a false shout of fire. If there really is a fire ;it's probably a good idea to shout it out.
Hello again, tom:
So, you think yelling fire in a crowded theater where this is NONE, is PROTECTED speech? You don't, do you?Quote:
He was wrong in his ruling regardless of the metaphor
Excon
I was speaking of the case he was deciding ;which was authoritarian . You can't tell me you agree that protesting a war is sedition?? Holmes tried tying the idea of yelling fire in a crowded theater as a First Amendment exception to the idea restricting speech against the government in wartime .He was absolutely wrong .
Hello again, tom:
That's funny... A case WRONGLY decided resulted in one of the most accepted curbs on freedom of speech..
excon
It was reversed in 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio . The Brandenburg test bans speech only if it incites or could incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).
You want a solution. A permanent one that provides protection as well as routes for safety of the children. How about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Every classroom gets a 12 ga semi auto shotgun in it. The principle or admin staff get a cabinet full of them. All you need to do is provide the right training and fill them with bean bags. Even a poor shot that goes awry won't harm the children. And the shooter goes down no matter what they are wearing. You can stop them from breathing if you hit them repeatedly.
Just a suggestion from here.
Bean Bag Ammunition For Sale : 12ga Ballistic Bean Bag Rounds for your Shotgun : Power Punch Bean Bag - KeepshootingŪ
Non-lethal shotgun training - YouTube
Shot by Shotgun with Bean Bag Shot - YouTube
Hello again, dad:
The problem is there's TOO many guns.. Not too little.
excon
And just what is your idea of a solution that is realistic. I know you have had military trainiing and may have had access to some of the more high powered weapons. So what do you suggest as the defense against them?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, dad:
LESS of them. Or at least LESS of them with giant, huge, humongous magazines. That can easily be done. You get LESS of them when you CLOSE the gun show loophole. You get LESS of them, when a REAL background checks can be done ON THE SPOT.Quote:
So what do you suggest as the defense against them?
I'm not a fan of eliminating assault rifles, because it's only LOOKS that make it different from your ordinary hunting rifle. But, if it results is LESS guns on the street, then let's do that.
You do those things IN COMBINATION with a re-introduction of our nations mental health responsibilities... You do that when the country is READY to do it because this IS the last massacre.
Nobody wants to interfere with YOUR right to defend your family, collect guns if you wish, and hunt to your hearts content. None of the restrictions I mention DO that to you.
Of course, Republicans STILL control the House, and they'll STILL be able to filibuster the Senate, so I don't see ANY of those reforms being enacted.
I SAW Wayne La Pierre. He's INTRANSIGENT! If the NRA is as powerful as I think it is, there won't be ONE Republican who'll vote for ANY reforms..
Excon
Simple solution buy them backQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
That doesn't work. It been tried many times.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Hello again, clete:
We're doing that. San Diego gun buyback nets a record 364 weapons. Other communities are doing it too.Quote:
simple solution buy them back
Excon
That's good Ex it's a start, if the rewards are big enough it will work
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:10 PM. |