# Stuff and Things > Guns and Self Defense >  Should firearms be banned to the public?

## Priest of Swag

Should the state ban firearms to civilians? If so, why? I am sure most will disagree, but there are some that believe firearms are better off being illegal.

----------


## Captain Kirk!

Come get them.

----------

Crunch (08-16-2016),Daily Bread (08-15-2016),Deno (08-15-2016),MedicineBow (08-15-2016),Mgunner (08-15-2016),Old Ridge Runner (08-15-2016)

----------


## Montana

So you are what a fool that objects to a constitutional right ? Hell take them all and lets have another revolution. 


> Should the state ban firearms to civilians? If so, why? I am sure most will disagree, but there are some that believe firearms are better off being illegal.

----------

Big Country Politix (08-15-2016),Deno (08-15-2016),Old Ridge Runner (08-15-2016)

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

Tell ya what, if you want BIG gun control, come to Canada.  They speak the same language, and the government fulfills all of your dreams.

----------

Big Country Politix (08-15-2016),Daily Bread (08-15-2016),Old Ridge Runner (08-15-2016)

----------


## hoytmonger

No, firearms should not be banned to the public... but I do believe they should be banned to the government.

----------

NRJeys (08-16-2016),Rutabaga (08-15-2016),teeceetx (08-15-2016)

----------


## Kodiak

> Should the state ban firearms to civilians? If so, why? I am sure most will disagree, but there are some that believe firearms are better off being illegal.


Don't think you're going to get a whole lot of yes answers in this forum.   In fact, I doubt you will get any.

----------

NRJeys (08-16-2016)

----------


## stg-44

Firearms are symbols, a quick method of determining whether a nations citizens are slaves=no guns, or citizens= gun possession=inalienable rights. A means, and a method of continuing the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For instance, the population of the United States can quickly be identified as citizens because they bare arms. In England the population is viewed as subjects of the Crown, no right to bare arms. My answer would be no to your question. Any attempt by the government to terminate the right to arms or any other rights should be viewed as an attempt by the government to commit genocide against the people, the end result.

----------

Deno (08-15-2016),Mgunner (08-15-2016),Montana (08-15-2016),Priest of Swag (08-15-2016)

----------


## Montana

To sane government I would disagree. Then again we no longer have such a thing.


> No, firearms should not be banned to the public... but I do believe they should be banned to the government.


 The feds at every level including the Social Security administration along with the department of interior and Noah {national oceanic atmospheric  administration) have been stockpiling weapons and ammo for what ?Do they see a threat from mother nature or a threat from we the people ?

----------

Old Ridge Runner (08-15-2016),OldSchool (08-18-2016),stg-44 (08-15-2016),teeceetx (08-23-2016)

----------


## Captain Kirk!

For the libtards.

----------

Big Country Politix (08-15-2016),Crunch (08-16-2016),Jehoshaphat (08-15-2016),stg-44 (08-15-2016)

----------


## stg-44

:Smiley ROFLMAO:  You can't go wrong with the Simpsons.

----------

Captain Kirk! (08-15-2016)

----------


## Midgardian

> Don't think you're going to get a whole lot of yes answers in this forum.   In fact, I doubt you will get any.


Its like asking "should _Roe v Wade_ be overturned" at PH.

----------


## Montana

Whack and stack any proven enemies of the state. Those in power today took and oath to defend America and its constitution.[ If they fail to do so no warning shot is needed.QUOTE=stg-44;1114567]Firearms are symbols, a quick method of determining whether a nations citizens are slaves=no guns, or citizens= gun possession=inalienable rights. A means, and a method of continuing the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For instance, the population of the United States can quickly be identified as citizens because they bare arms. In England the population is viewed as subjects of the Crown, no right to bare arms. My answer would be no to your question. Any attempt by the government to terminate the right to arms or any other rights should be viewed as an attempt by the government to commit genocide against the people, the end result.[/QUOTE]

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

> Should the state ban firearms to civilians? If so, why? I am sure most will disagree, but there are some that believe firearms are better off being illegal.



  1)  Aren't you on the wrong website to be asking that kind of question ?

  2)  Are you a reincarnated Troll - thrown into the scrap pile by Trinnity ?

  3)  The US Constitution as well as some US Supreme Court decisions disagree with your question ?

  4)   Why are you intentionally trying to get people "riled up" , and start and argument ?


    It is my opinion, that you are of the ignorant society , from somewhere on the far west coast, and a surfing board is your only companion. For being so ignorant, and failing to keep up with news events, as well as situational awareness and for not paying attention to the terrorist events inside the US Borders ; I hear by put your name on the manifest for the "Big Black Chopper" ; to carry you away to never - never land , and never return.


                              WHOPPPP - WHOPPPP  - WHOPPPP


                   Here is comes.            Priest of Swag is on the manifest !







        As soon as you arrive at your destination ; far - far - far away, and disembark in a super huge field..... ; Calypso Jones shall line you up for an artillery strike.....which may.....or may not be survivable, depending on the mood she is in. The artillery strikes she sends both explode in the air ( no hiding from a artillery or mortar "air burst" ) , as well as on the ground.


       Best of luck.



      :Joe  ( Prior Service - US Army : Combat Veteran & A  registered and voting Republican )

----------

Big Country Politix (08-15-2016)

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

> Tell ya what, if you want BIG gun control, come to Canada.  They speak the same language, and the government fulfills all of your dreams.



 According to the "9/11 Commission Report" ; the Federal Bureau of Investigation, on the average - Tracks 9 ( nine ) terror cells in the United States at any one time.



    :Joe

----------


## Dan40

> Should the state ban firearms to civilians? If so, why? I am sure most will disagree, but there are some that believe firearms are better off being illegal.



You are new here.  Intelligent questions are appreciated here.  Dumb assed ones are not.

Try again.  You have time.

----------

Joe Hallenbeck (08-15-2016)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

Who is this guy? Must be a Rosie O Donnel wanna be

----------


## Big Country Politix

Hahahahahahahahahaha

That wasn't a real question right?

What new army is implementing this? Do you think a million waco type incidents will work out well? 
Holy hell what a troll of a question.

Its unfeasible and would never be allowed without a litteral war. True answers to a dumb question

----------


## Big Country Politix

> Tell ya what, if you want BIG gun control, come to Canada.  They speak the same language, and the government fulfills all of your dreams.


We're gonna have to build a second wall aye? 

Lol. Kidding. Some of you guys know what you're talking aboot

----------

FirstGenCanadian (08-15-2016)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> Should the state ban firearms to civilians? If so, why? I am sure most will disagree, but there are some that believe firearms are better off being illegal.


Go see this thread please. And please, let it sink in. 

the liberals are destroying this country

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-15-2016),nonsqtr (08-15-2016)

----------


## Quark

Looks like we have the possibility of another liberal troll.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-15-2016)

----------


## Kodiak

> Who is this guy? Must be a Rosie O Donnel wanna be


I was thinking Piers Morgan.

----------

Rutabaga (08-15-2016)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> I was thinking Piers Morgan.


Have you seen all the thread titles this PoS has started today?

----------


## Big Country Politix

Priest of swag....

$50 this is the no life having troll from politix/topix. Dude brags about trolling here but this really isn't funny. Asking a retarded ass question that would be divisive even on a far left forum is not funny or creative.. .

Dont worry... Dude will tell you what a success he is but he is a black democrat from chiraq and uses words like "owned" and "destroyed" when having political discussion.
Most likely works at a gas station or something equivalent and trolls both sites in between games of call of duty...

Now what homie...

----------

Rickity Plumber (08-16-2016)

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> Should the state ban firearms to civilians? If so, why? I am sure most will disagree, but there are some that believe firearms are better off being illegal.


No. There is this thing called the Second Amendment to the US Constitution that prohibits them from being banned. Why would you ask such an ignorant question?

----------

Big Country Politix (08-15-2016),Deno (08-15-2016),MedicineBow (08-15-2016),Rickity Plumber (08-16-2016)

----------


## Priest of Swag

> So you are what a fool that objects to a constitutional right ? Hell take them all and lets have another revolution.


Never said I wanted firearms to be illegal, and even if I did it would be a matter of perspective, nothing to call me a fool over.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> 1)  Aren't you on the wrong website to be asking that kind of question ?
> 
>   2)  Are you a reincarnated Troll - thrown into the scrap pile by Trinnity ?
> 
>   3)  The US Constitution as well as some US Supreme Court decisions disagree with your question ?
> 
>   4)   Why are you intentionally trying to get people "riled up" , and start and argument ?
> 
> 
> ...


1. Its a political site, these questions are valid. 
2. No.
3. Nope, but this isn't about the second amendment, putting the constitution aside, in any country, should firearms be banned to the public?
4. I am not, I guess I didn't know this site was full of ignorant conservatives.

I am not ignorant on society at all. However, you seem to be ignorant of my post.

----------


## Robert Urbanek

> For the libtards.


You do realize the video mocks gun enthusiasts, don't you?

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

> Who is this guy? Must be a Rosie O Donnel wanna be




 LMAO.


  Rosie......and Roseanne Barr, all wrapped into one.


       :Joe

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

> 1. Its a political site, these questions are valid. 
> .







  See above post comment by ---> @Dan40






> You are new here.  Intelligent questions are appreciated here.  Dumb assed ones are not.
> 
> Try again.  You have time.





Try again.  You have time.



Love it !   ( laughing ) 


  :Joe

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

> We're gonna have to build a second wall aye? 
> 
> Lol. Kidding. Some of you guys know what you're talking aboot


Hey, I support the 2nd Amendment...I am just offering these anti gun people an alternative.  Why mess with others rights when you can simply move where your happiest.

----------

Big Country Politix (08-15-2016)

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

> Who is this guy? Must be a Rosie O Donnel wanna be





> I was thinking Piers Morgan.


Now, now, who are we to judge... :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

Rickity Plumber (08-16-2016)

----------


## Priest of Swag

> See above post comment by ---> @Dan40
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The question I asked isn't a Dumb assed question. You don't determine what questions are relevant based on whether you like it, this is a political site, so the question is relevant.

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

The OP should be questioned whether or not the Government has the right to interfere and changed the Constitution.

The short answer, is no.

----------

Big Country Politix (08-15-2016),Conservative Libertarian (08-15-2016)

----------


## Hillofbeans

> The question I asked isn't a Dumb assed question. You don't determine what questions are relevant based on whether you like it, this is a political site, so the question is relevant.


No it's not. It's a dumb ass question, gun ownership is a right, not up for debate.

----------

Big Country Politix (08-15-2016),Conservative Libertarian (08-15-2016),Deno (08-15-2016),FirstGenCanadian (08-15-2016),MedicineBow (08-15-2016)

----------


## Priest of Swag

> No it's not. It's a dumb ass question, gun ownership is a right, not up for debate.


Yes, a state granted legal entitlement specifically in the U.S., but it is not that way everywhere. It is about whether firearms should be banned, not whether they can be based on a constitution specifically in the U.S.

----------


## Hillofbeans

> Yes, a state granted legal entitlement specifically in the U.S., but it is not that way everywhere. It is about whether firearms should be banned, not whether they can be based on a constitution specifically in the U.S.


 Well, if the citizenry in Syria, Iraq, and France had the right to arms they wouldn't be forced to run from predators, only the thugs and criminals are armed, see how that works? Like it? It's a dumb ass question.

----------

Big Country Politix (08-15-2016),Conservative Libertarian (08-15-2016),Deno (08-15-2016),FirstGenCanadian (08-15-2016),MedicineBow (08-15-2016),Rickity Plumber (08-16-2016)

----------


## Kodiak

> 1. Its a political site, these questions are valid. 
> 2. No.
> 3. Nope, but this isn't about the second amendment, *putting the constitution aside*, in any country, should firearms be banned to the public?
> 4. I am not, I guess I didn't know this site was full of ignorant conservatives.
> 
> I am not ignorant on society at all. However, you seem to be ignorant of my post.



The problem with your question is in bold.  We don't put The Constitution aside.

----------

Big Country Politix (08-15-2016),Conservative Libertarian (08-15-2016),Deno (08-15-2016),FirstGenCanadian (08-15-2016),Hillofbeans (08-15-2016),MedicineBow (08-15-2016),Rickity Plumber (08-16-2016),Rutabaga (08-16-2016)

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

> Yes, a state granted legal entitlement specifically in the U.S., but it is not that way everywhere. It is about whether firearms should be banned, not whether they can be based on a constitution specifically in the U.S.


You can't ban something that is guaranteed.  Should, would, could, all be damned.  You can't.

----------

Big Country Politix (08-15-2016),Conservative Libertarian (08-15-2016),Deno (08-15-2016),Kodiak (08-15-2016),Rickity Plumber (08-16-2016)

----------


## Kodiak

I'm wondering if the OP is in a foreign country.   His question is like asking if Saudi Arabia should allow prayer rugs.  Some people in other countries have no concept of our Constitution.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-15-2016),Deno (08-15-2016),Rickity Plumber (08-16-2016)

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> I'm wondering if the OP is in a foreign country.   His question is like asking if Saudi Arabia should allow prayer rugs.  Some people in other countries have no concept of our Constitution.


Many people within the US have no concept of the US Constitution.

----------

FirstGenCanadian (08-15-2016),Kodiak (08-15-2016),MedicineBow (08-15-2016),Rickity Plumber (08-16-2016)

----------


## squidward

> Should the state ban firearms to civilians? If so, why? I am sure most will disagree, but there are some that believe firearms are better off being illegal.


When your breathing is deemed illegal, I'll think about it

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-15-2016)

----------


## Kodiak

> Many people within the US have no concept of the US Constitution.


True......they're called Progressives.  But at least they generally hide their disdain for that pesky document.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-16-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Should the state ban firearms to civilians? If so, why? I am sure most will disagree, but there are some that believe firearms are better off being illegal.



well,,,a whole lot of people think their elvis too...

and talented and smart...

even when many more people know they are not...


cant make decisions on your own based on others opinions...

what do YOU think?

----------


## hoytmonger

> Many people within the US have no concept of the US Constitution.


And many people that believe they have a concept of the Constitution actually don't.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-16-2016)

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

> ......so the question is relevant.



 As with the above posts and my Quote of @Dan40   : WE disagree.


 There ya go - Democracy in action.



 :Joe

----------


## Kodiak

> And many people that believe they have a concept of the Constitution actually don't.


At least half of the Supreme Court, the half with mostly females.

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

> I'm wondering if the OP is in a foreign country. His question is like asking if Saudi Arabia should allow prayer rugs. Some people in other countries have no concept of our Constitution.



A troll, wanting to start an argument ; and intentionally tick people off.

Like where I work, arriving to work this evening...... and people intentionally sabatoage the air conditioner, or Run the A/C real cold the last part of the day..... so it freeze up and I have no Air Conditioning when I arrive to work at Gate Three.

A/C problems, only occur with certain ( two of them ) people....MOST all the time.


Childish and immature people.....are everywhere.

Same people - time after time when I walk in Gate Three = "Guess What, The Air Conditioner does not work?"

Along with the air conditioner not working, this evening - the brightness and contrast settings are messed up on the computer..I have to readjust them, tobacco spit in the trash can....making a mess when I take out the trash, and the trash can is "Overflowing" ; as well as their is trash and unkempt papers on the counter / desk, when I arrive. 

And it is the same people.....most always.

Juveniles.....and I believe........malicously retallitory people most everywhere.


There ought to be a law.



:Joe

----------


## hoytmonger

> At least half of the Supreme Court, the half with mostly females.


Also, at least half of the so-called "conservatives" on this site that believe it's a sacred writ. 

When in actuality, the Constitution allows for the current US government.

Once the general government of the US granted itself the authority to levy taxes and raise armies, tyranny was inevitable... as was warned by Elbridge Gerry, George Mason, Patrick Henry and many others that refused to sign the document.

----------


## hoytmonger

> A troll, wanting to start an argument ; and intentionally tick people off.


It seems you'd prefer an echo chamber instead of a discussion of varied opinions.

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

> It seems you'd prefer an echo chamber instead of a discussion of varied opinions.



 YOU are not looking for a discussion - you are looking for an argument.

  NOTHING further.


    :Joe

----------

Big Country Politix (08-15-2016)

----------


## hoytmonger

> YOU are not looking for a discussion - you are looking for an argument.
> 
>   NOTHING further.
> 
> 
>     :Joe


Sooo... you prefer an echo chamber.

----------


## Big Country Politix

> Hey, I support the 2nd Amendment...I am just offering these anti gun people an alternative.  Why mess with others rights when you can simply move where your happiest.


I totally agree. I was just messing around. Canada seems pretty nice from the tiny amount I've seen.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-16-2016),FirstGenCanadian (08-15-2016)

----------


## Big Country Politix

> Sooo... you prefer an echo chamber.


It was a ridiculous question "now what"
You know it too.... Trolls gonna troll
Civilian disarmament in this country is not going to happen without major damage

----------


## Priest of Swag

> The problem with your question is in bold.  We don't put The Constitution aside.


You are thinking too narrowly in U.S. political terms, simply an excuse to not engage in this question.

----------


## hoytmonger

> It was a ridiculous question "now what"
> You know it too.... Trolls gonna troll
> Civilian disarmament in this country is not going to happen without major damage


It was a legitimate question.

You don't seem up to the task of discussing it like an adult.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Well, if the citizenry in Syria, Iraq, and France had the right to arms they wouldn't be forced to run from predators, only the thugs and criminals are armed, see how that works? Like it? It's a dumb ass question.


Finally, a little discussion, you provided an argument, however, that doesn't make it a dumb ass question.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> You can't ban something that is guaranteed.  Should, would, could, all be damned.  You can't.


We are not assuming that guns are guaranteed everywhere, we are assuming that they could be banned in a society and whether it should be or not.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> When your breathing is deemed illegal, I'll think about it


No wonder why your among the ignorant.

----------


## Big Country Politix

> It was a legitimate question.
> 
> You don't seem up to the task of discussing it like an adult.


It is not a legitimate question. 

A. There will never be the support needed to abolish the 2nd.

B. There is no possible way to accomplish your wet dream without our country literally breaking out in war. This will be the issue.

It is a bullshit question.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> well,,,a whole lot of people think their elvis too...
> 
> and talented and smart...
> 
> even when many more people know they are not...
> 
> 
> cant make decisions on your own based on others opinions...
> 
> what do YOU think?


I think we shouldn't be arrogant and be open to others ideas, apparently, many on here are too close minded. Most people in general are anyways.

----------


## Kodiak

> You are thinking too narrowly in U.S. political terms, simply an excuse to not engage in this question.


No, I'm thinking as a US citizen having no desire to discuss removing a right I was born with.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-16-2016)

----------


## hoytmonger

> It is not a legitimate question. 
> 
> A. There will never be the support needed to abolish the 2nd.
> 
> B. There is no possible way to accomplish your wet dream without our country literally breaking out in war. This will be the issue.
> 
> It is a bullshit question.


The second amendment has already been significantly eroded. 

When the cops show up at your door in full riot gear and machine guns to confiscate your firearms, you'll fold like a cheap suit.

Keep acting like a tough guy, though. Some here will believe you.

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

> We are not assuming that guns are guaranteed everywhere, we are assuming that they could be banned in a society and whether it should be or not.


Banning guns is not the answer.  Banning weapons of any kind is not the answer.  Everyone has the right to defend themselves.  There are however some certain rules you should know.  Never bring a knife to a gun battle.  That sort of thing.  

The only reason a government would ban peoples rights to defend themselves, is because they are planning tyranny.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-16-2016),Rutabaga (08-16-2016)

----------


## Priest of Swag

> No, I'm thinking as a US citizen having no desire to discuss removing a right I was born with.


Alright then, why shouldn't the right be repealed or removed?

----------


## hoytmonger

> Alright then, why shouldn't the right be repealed or removed?


How can a natural right be repealed or removed?

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-16-2016),Rutabaga (08-16-2016),Sled Dog (08-16-2016)

----------


## Priest of Swag

> How can a natural right be repealed or removed?


I am talking about legal rights, not moral rights. If the state can give you rights, they can take them away and use force against those who do it anyways.

----------


## Kodiak

> Alright then, why shouldn't the right be repealed or removed?


Read the 2nd Amendment. I'm done here.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-16-2016),FirstGenCanadian (08-16-2016)

----------


## hoytmonger

> I am talking about legal rights, not moral rights. If the state can give you rights, they can take them away and use force against those who do it anyways.


I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "legal right."

----------


## Mordent

> No wonder why your among the ignorant.


Ignorant is not knowing the difference between "your" and "you're", PoS.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Ignorant is not knowing the difference between "your" and "you're", PoS.


Damn, that would make many on this site ignorant.

----------


## Mgunner

> Should the state ban firearms to civilians? If so, why? I am sure most will disagree, but there are some that believe firearms are better off being illegal.


image.jpeg

----------


## MedicineBow

Jeez, we had frost Saturday morning and I ran the heat.




> A troll, wanting to start an argument ; and intentionally tick people off.
> 
> Like where I work, arriving to work this evening...... and people intentionally sabatoage the air conditioner, or Run the A/C real cold the last part of the day..... so it freeze up and I have no Air Conditioning when I arrive to work at Gate Three.
> 
> A/C problems, only occur with certain ( two of them ) people....MOST all the time.
> 
> 
> Childish and immature people.....are everywhere.
> 
> ...

----------


## Mgunner

> I am talking about legal rights, not moral rights. If the state can give you rights, they can take them away and use force against those who do it anyways.


The state didn't give us the right to bear arms the people declared that right when they created the state. "Here are your powers on this little document right here. See? We all signed it. Now leave this stuff here the fuck alone." See how that works?

----------

Big Country Politix (08-16-2016),Conservative Libertarian (08-16-2016),Mordent (08-16-2016),Rickity Plumber (08-16-2016),Rutabaga (08-16-2016)

----------


## MedicineBow

Perhaps you and I view things from differing perspectives.  I don't believe the 2nd amendment "gives" me anything.  It reaffirms what I was born with.




> I am talking about legal rights, not moral rights. If the state can give you rights, they can take them away and use force against those who do it anyways.

----------

Big Country Politix (08-16-2016),Conservative Libertarian (08-16-2016),Joe Hallenbeck (08-15-2016),Mordent (08-16-2016)

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

> Perhaps you and I view things from differing perspectives.  I don't believe the 2nd amendment "gives" me anything.  It reaffirms what I was born with.



 The first ten amendments to the Constitution is............."THE BILL OF RIGHTs" ( not yelling - stressing  :Smile:   )


  Yaaaaaa - Yaaaaaaaaaa.  YAAAAAAA some more.   Yaaaaaa - Hooh Rah - Yaaaaaaaa !



  Ding - Ding - Ding >>> I am the winner !!!!!!  Yaaaaaaaa.


 Boy...American History taught me something huh?

 Gotta love arguing with a liberal.



   :Joe

----------

Big Country Politix (08-16-2016),Conservative Libertarian (08-16-2016),MedicineBow (08-16-2016)

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

> The state didn't give us the right to bear arms the people declared that right when they created the state. "Here are your powers on this little document right here. See? We all signed it. Now leave this stuff here the fuck alone." See how that works?





      Ding - Ding - Ding.


     Its the Bell.  





Pay strict attention to the state of Maine.

   Liberals...............read this -----> State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions





         :Joe

----------


## nonsqtr

> Never said I wanted firearms to be illegal, and even if I did it would be a matter of perspective, nothing to call me a fool over.


The honest answer is, it simply wouldn't work. People would just laugh at you. Guns are exactly like drugs and alcohol and prostitution - they're going to occur anyway no matter what the law says. Y'know, I mean, you'd have to be a complete moron to believe that everyone down under has voluntarily disarmed themselves, right? And here in this country, we have a special problem because the People feel they're entitled to protect themselves (which they are), and they don't trust the government to do it for them (and again, justifiably so).

Second, there is no reason to disarm the People. Legally disarming the population will not stop terrorism, it will not stop mass shootings, it will not stop any of the things liberal hearts bleed over. If someone gets pissed and they can't find a gun within arm's reach, they'll grab a crowbar, or a pipe wrench, or whatever else happens to be nearby.

What would be better than a government program to disarm the citizens, is a government program to educate the citizens. Make sure everyone knows what a gun is about. But you're fighting assholes like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who wants to ban guns for everyone but herself. This woman is an ignorant coward, an in no way should she have anything to say about gun laws in this country. She is constitutionally incapable of representing the People on this subject.

And that last sentence, I'm afraid, would apply to a whole lot of liberals in this country. They're mostly ignorant, most of 'em don't even know what they're afraid of. It's the same stupid mentality as the "war on drugs", you know, a bunch of anxious housewives who've never seen an actual drug in their lives, trying to moralize to the rest of us and make our lives inconvenient and dangerous.

I can tell you where I stand on this issue: no one will ever "take away" my right to defend myself and my family. I claim that right, and honestly I just don't give a crap what the law says in this regard, except that, I will adjust my strategies accordingly so I don't have to go to jail. What that means in real life is, if I have to shoot someone, I have to make sure they're stone cold dead, because anything less than that will get me lawsuits and possibly even years in jail. You see, this kind of asinine policy on the part of the government, forces people to do what they have to do in real life, and I positively guarantee you that there are as many people who know how to game the gun laws, as there are who know how to game the welfare system. Gaming abounds, in any kind of situation like this, and if our idiot government decides to ban weapons then the first thing that'll happen is the cartels will get into the weapons business and we'll have an even bigger problem on our Southern border. (You're familiar with Nuevo Laredo, yes? That's the stone cold reality).

"Making weapons illegal" is a black hole for time and money and fruitless effort. You might as well stand in the shower and tear up hundred dollar bills.

----------

Priest of Swag (08-16-2016)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Alright then, why shouldn't the right be repealed or removed?


Rights do not come from government.

Government abridges or violates those rights; but it does not grant them.

----------

Big Country Politix (08-16-2016),Conservative Libertarian (08-16-2016),hoytmonger (08-15-2016),Rutabaga (08-16-2016)

----------


## Archer

> Should the state ban firearms to civilians? If so, why? I am sure most will disagree, but there are some that believe firearms are better off being illegal.





> Come get them.

----------

Captain Kirk! (08-16-2016)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I am talking about legal rights, not moral rights. If the state can give you rights, they can take them away and use force against those who do it anyways.


The law does not give rights.  It RECOGNIZES the rights of sovereign citizens; or in tyrannical nation-states it violates them.

Rights come from (take your pick) Natural Law, the Creator, God.  They have been divined from philosophers studying human society for eons.  Societies that recognize the rights of individuals to acquire property and protect their person, their children and their property, are societies that do far better than societies that reduce the population to peonage.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-16-2016),FirstGenCanadian (08-16-2016),Mordent (08-16-2016),Rutabaga (08-16-2016)

----------


## Midgardian

> Rights do not come from government.
> 
> Government abridges or violates those rights; but it does not grant them.


Indeed.

Rights are inherent as part of being a human being and also unalienable.

They come from God or nature, depending on your metaphysical viewpoint.

----------

Rutabaga (08-16-2016)

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

> The law does not give rights.



 Go back to Law School.

Learn these two terms.

 Term #1 )  Legal Privledge

 Term #2 )  Legal Rights

  In reference to # 2, the Miranda Warning would be a good start.

"You have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney...ect"

  Research the court case  -----  Miranda vs Arizona

  Driving is a Privilege, Being free from unauthorized search and seizure.....IS A RIGHT granted by the 4th amendment ; and the right to freedom of speech ( within legal parameters ) IS A RIGHT granted by the 1st Amendment.



   :Joe

----------


## Midgardian

> Go back to Law School.
> 
> Learn these two terms.
> 
>  Term #1 )  Legal Privledge
> 
>  Term #2 )  Legal Rights
> 
>   In reference to # 2, the Miranda Warning would be a good start.
> ...


Uh, no.

Those amendments codify inherent rights which are granted by natural law.

Note the word "inherent".

An inherent right cannot be granted nor taken away - only denied.

It is the sole purpose of government to secure those unalienable rights.

When government fails to do so - we have what is known as tyranny.

When tyranny is present - it is the duty of the people to secure a new government for itself - using force of arms if necessary.

----------

Big Country Politix (08-16-2016),Rutabaga (08-16-2016)

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

> Uh, no.
> 
> Those amendments codify inherent rights which are granted by natural law.
> 
> Note the word "inherent".
> 
> An inherent right cannot be granted nor taken away - only denied.
> 
> It is the sole purpose of government to secure those unalienable rights.
> ...





  The legal system is plum full of Ulterior Motives, and has a long cord strapped to the American Public whom have their hands tied behind their backs.

  The legal system can do no wrong - hates to feel guilty - denies wrongdoing - backtracks over their mistakes and fallacies - and has many agents.

   Find the lowest common denominator ( LCD ). Connect the LCD with other instances, events, people and places.




          "Ain't nobody innocent in this shit, Ferris. Okay?"

           ---- Ed Hoffman : Movie "Body of Lies "


         Ed Hoffman doesn't _know shit until he steals_ it from the man on the ground, and that's me.

              ---- Roger Ferris : Movie "Body of Lies"






   Politics - Lawyers - Legislative People.


     :Joe

----------


## Midgardian

> Find the lowest common denominator ( LCD ). Connect the LCD with other instances, events, people and places.


 When I do that I am called an anti-Semite.

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

@Midgardian,


   Jews were not the first spys.

   One of...the earliest.....after biblical days, was the Japanese Ninja.

    In feudal Japan, Ninja appeared to be field workers, clergy, small business owners, and general laborers to carry out their assassinations, or for intelligence gathering...........before the attack or assassination.

    Intelligence is a very - very - very important thing ; before any battle / conflict.

    If before a conflict or war , I would play the dumbest person on the planet - before I pounced like "Tigger."


    Remember ---> "Tippecanoe and Tyler too."



           :Joe

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Go back to Law School.
> 
> Learn these two terms.
> 
>  Term #1 )  Legal Privledge
> 
>  Term #2 )  Legal Rights
> 
>   In reference to # 2, the Miranda Warning would be a good start.
> ...


We are not in law school or a court of law.  We are discussing the SOURCE of rights - not the codification of rights or judicial interpretation of those codified laws.

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

> We are not in law school or a court of law.  We are discussing the SOURCE of rights - not the codification of rights or judicial interpretation of those codified laws.



 :Wink: 


   I'm right. I'm always right. That's why Women.....and Jennifer Anniston ---> call me - "Mr.Right !"


 :Smile: 




 :Joe

----------


## JustPassinThru

Nope.  You're very wrong.

What do your law professors say about Natural Law and the Rights of Man?

----------


## Sled Dog

> You are thinking too narrowly in U.S. political terms, simply an excuse to not engage in this question.


Weapons ownership is a basic human right, the oldest such right, older even that the species itself.

Just governments have no fear of their citizens and thus no desire to steal their guns.

It's not complicated.

It's a freedom thing, so you can't understand.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-16-2016),Mordent (08-16-2016),Rutabaga (08-16-2016)

----------


## Sled Dog

> I think we shouldn't be arrogant and be open to others ideas, apparently, many on here are too close minded. Most people in general are anyways.


I'm open to the idea that people who vote Rodent should be required to put a sign on their property saying "Gun Free Zone".

Let's see how that works before we start disarming the Americans.

----------

Rickity Plumber (08-16-2016)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Alright then, why shouldn't the right be repealed or removed?


Because it's a human right.

Why should it be repealed, when it's not even granted by law, but part of the fact of human existence?

----------


## Sled Dog

> I am talking about legal rights, not moral rights. If the state can give you rights, they can take them away and use force against those who do it anyways.


Human rights cannot be granted neither by the State nor by Nintendo.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "legal right."


He made it clear in the next sentence.

A "legal right" is a "right" donated to the people by the charitable desires of their government.

Or some such shit.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-16-2016)

----------


## Sled Dog

> The first ten amendments to the Constitution is............."THE BILL OF RIGHTs" ( not yelling - stressing   )
> 
> 
>   Yaaaaaa - Yaaaaaaaaaa.  YAAAAAAA some more.   Yaaaaaa - Hooh Rah - Yaaaaaaaa !
> 
> 
> 
>   Ding - Ding - Ding >>> I am the winner !!!!!!  Yaaaaaaaa.
> 
> ...


Did this post have some kind of point?  It's not clear to me what position you're presenting here.

The Constitution grants NO rights of any kind.

None.

Not one.

It limits how much the government can intrude on them.

----------


## Midgardian

> @Midgardian,
> 
> 
>    Jews were not the first spys.
> 
>    One of...the earliest.....after biblical days, was the Japanese Ninja.
> 
>     In feudal Japan, Ninja appeared to be field workers, clergy, small business owners, and general laborers to carry out their assassinations, or for intelligence gathering...........before the attack or assassination.
> 
> ...


I never said that Jews were the first spies, nor do I know from where you drew that conclusion.

There have no doubt been spies as long as people have been warring with each other.

One instance, which is much earlier than the era of Japanese feudalism, and later than whatever may have been the first instance of espionage, is recorded  early in the Book of Joshua.

Joshua sent Israelite spies into Jericho.  Once inside the city, they encountered a prostitute named Rahab. She gave them shelter and provided information. In return, her life, family, and home were spared when the Israelites returned to take the city.

I know that "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" was the slogan of the successful Whig presidential campaign of 1840, but I fail to grasp its significance to the topic under discussion.

Perhaps you were born in a log cabin and have been drinking hard cider?

Maybe you would enjoy a swim in the Potomac in March.

Obamacare probably covers pneumonia.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Driving is a Privilege, Being free from unauthorized search and seizure.....IS A RIGHT granted by the 4th amendment ; and the right to freedom of speech ( within legal parameters ) IS A RIGHT granted by the 1st Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
>    :Joe


Ah.

Question answered.

You're wrong.

Problem solved.

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> LMAO.
> 
> 
>   Rosie......and Roseanne Barr, all wrapped into one.
> 
> 
>        :Joe


Two of the biggest pukes this side of Hollywood. And now there is PoS . . . great.

----------

Joe Hallenbeck (08-16-2016)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> No wonder why your among the ignorant.


This is why you have only "1" Rep Power. 


Your smart azzed school yard whines get you nowhere fast and even banned faster. Maybe today when I come home from work I will see that you are gone. Which will prove that once again, rodents are equally as intelligent as what I flush down the toilet in the mornings.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-16-2016)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> The second amendment has already been significantly eroded. 
> 
> When the cops show up at your door in full riot gear and machine guns to confiscate your firearms, you'll fold like a cheap suit.
> 
> Keep acting like a tough guy, though. Some here will believe you.


I can see rodents dressing in full riot gear to come and confiscate my firearms. First of all, any legitimate cop or US serviceman or women would not be on that side of the door. They would be on the inside seeing as how their rights were taken as much as ours. 

The rodents in riot gear would be afraid to pick up a gun. Even democrats who own guns would not agree with you. 


I won't call you a tough guy.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-16-2016)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> We are not in law school or a court of law.  We are discussing the SOURCE of rights - not the codification of rights or judicial interpretation of those codified laws.


And PoS just wanted to know how we feel about stripping away guns from our hands. PoS is the one who has drastically failed and we have again sent him scurrying to his rodent brothers. Perhaps he did learn that "taking away guns" is much more than you or I handing over a cold piece of machined steel; It is much deeper than changing who possesses said piece of steel. But then again, PoS is a rodent, perhaps he will never grasp that the Constitution was of the people, for the people and by the people.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-16-2016)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> I'm right. I'm always right. That's why Women.....and Jennifer Anniston ---> call me - "Mr.Right !"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  :Joe


Justin Theroux, is that you behind those goggles?

----------


## Big Country Politix

> The second amendment has already been significantly eroded. 
> 
> When the cops show up at your door in full riot gear and machine guns to confiscate your firearms, you'll fold like a cheap suit.
> 
> Keep acting like a tough guy, though. Some here will believe you.


And people are just going to stay isolated and accept this? There will be entire states that will not play along. It's not about being tough. Most people are not going to surrender their guns.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-16-2016),Mgunner (08-16-2016),Rutabaga (08-16-2016)

----------


## Big Country Politix

> Alright then, why shouldn't the right be repealed or removed?


Because you will always lack the support to do it. lol... The end

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-16-2016),Mordent (08-16-2016),Rutabaga (08-16-2016)

----------


## squidward

> No wonder why your among the ignorant.


Ignorant in what way, that I believe the right to own a firearm is as inherent as the right to breath ?

----------

Big Country Politix (08-16-2016)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> The first ten amendments to the Constitution is............."THE BILL OF RIGHTs" ( not yelling - stressing   )
> 
> 
>   Yaaaaaa - Yaaaaaaaaaa.  YAAAAAAA some more.   Yaaaaaa - Hooh Rah - Yaaaaaaaa !
> 
> 
> 
>   Ding - Ding - Ding >>> I am the winner !!!!!!  Yaaaaaaaa.
> 
> ...


Did they teach you _The Federalist_?  WHY there was opposition to enumerating ANY individual rights?

Excepting the Bill of Rights, there is NO listing of the rights of the citizen.  Because ALL power was acknowledged to be in the hands of the citizens and the State governments.  Power to the Federal government was limited and enumerated.  Power to the States and the people thereof was plenary (look it up).

Many at the Constitutional Convention resisted such a list as this for exactly this flawed reasoning.  They anticipated that in the future some people would be encouraged by despots to confuse government RECOGNITION of rights bestowed by the Creator, with government GRANTED rights that come from the government - through the Divine Right of Kings.

And here we are.  Someone half-educated is dancing around, making, he thinks, a successful case for tyranny.

----------

Rutabaga (08-16-2016)

----------


## Crunch



----------

Rickity Plumber (08-16-2016)

----------


## Captain Kirk!

> You do realize the video mocks gun enthusiasts, don't you?


Yes. If people can't take a joke or make fun of themselves, too bad.

----------


## Captain Kirk!

> I am talking about legal rights, not moral rights. If the state can give you rights, they can take them away and use force against those who do it anyways.


The state hasn't given anyone any rights. We are born with our rights. 

I think this guy is Gersh Kuntman.

Or maybe, the priests a fag.

----------


## Rutabaga

> *Yes, a state granted legal entitlement* specifically in the U.S., but it is not that way everywhere. It is about whether firearms should be banned, not whether they can be based on a constitution specifically in the U.S.




the right to bear arms pre-existed the government...

you cannot lay claim to something you never had.

the 2nd merely re-affirms that existence.

----------

Big Country Politix (08-16-2016),MedicineBow (08-16-2016),Mgunner (08-16-2016),Rickity Plumber (08-16-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> I think we shouldn't be arrogant and be open to others ideas, apparently, many on here are too close minded. Most people in general are anyways.



im open to others ideas.

im open to rejecting them if i disagree as well...

if everybody else thought it was a good idea to jump off a cliff, should it be my response as well?

everybody else is NOT me...nor i, them.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Alright then, why shouldn't the right be repealed or removed?



better question is why it should be.

go!

----------


## Rutabaga

> Damn, that would make many on this site ignorant.



your write.

----------

hoytmonger (08-16-2016)

----------


## KSigMason

> Should the state ban firearms to civilians? If so, why? I am sure most will disagree, but there are some that believe firearms are better off being illegal.


My answer is a big fat *NO*!

----------


## Priest of Swag

> I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "legal right."


That is what a "right" is, when the state can grant rights. Natural rights are unproven concepts.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> The state didn't give us the right to bear arms the people declared that right when they created the state. "Here are your powers on this little document right here. See? We all signed it. Now leave this stuff here the fuck alone." See how that works?


And the state protects it. Without the state, we wouldn't have a "right" to bear arms. That is what a right is, a legal entitlement.

----------


## Midgardian

> And the state protects it. Without the state, we wouldn't have a "right" to bear arms.


You clearly don't live in California.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> The honest answer is, it simply wouldn't work. People would just laugh at you. Guns are exactly like drugs and alcohol and prostitution - they're going to occur anyway no matter what the law says. Y'know, I mean, you'd have to be a complete moron to believe that everyone down under has voluntarily disarmed themselves, right? And here in this country, we have a special problem because the People feel they're entitled to protect themselves (which they are), and they don't trust the government to do it for them (and again, justifiably so).
> 
> Second, there is no reason to disarm the People. Legally disarming the population will not stop terrorism, it will not stop mass shootings, it will not stop any of the things liberal hearts bleed over. If someone gets pissed and they can't find a gun within arm's reach, they'll grab a crowbar, or a pipe wrench, or whatever else happens to be nearby.
> 
> What would be better than a government program to disarm the citizens, is a government program to educate the citizens. Make sure everyone knows what a gun is about. But you're fighting assholes like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who wants to ban guns for everyone but herself. This woman is an ignorant coward, an in no way should she have anything to say about gun laws in this country. She is constitutionally incapable of representing the People on this subject.
> 
> And that last sentence, I'm afraid, would apply to a whole lot of liberals in this country. They're mostly ignorant, most of 'em don't even know what they're afraid of. It's the same stupid mentality as the "war on drugs", you know, a bunch of anxious housewives who've never seen an actual drug in their lives, trying to moralize to the rest of us and make our lives inconvenient and dangerous.
> 
> I can tell you where I stand on this issue: no one will ever "take away" my right to defend myself and my family. I claim that right, and honestly I just don't give a crap what the law says in this regard, except that, I will adjust my strategies accordingly so I don't have to go to jail. What that means in real life is, if I have to shoot someone, I have to make sure they're stone cold dead, because anything less than that will get me lawsuits and possibly even years in jail. You see, this kind of asinine policy on the part of the government, forces people to do what they have to do in real life, and I positively guarantee you that there are as many people who know how to game the gun laws, as there are who know how to game the welfare system. Gaming abounds, in any kind of situation like this, and if our idiot government decides to ban weapons then the first thing that'll happen is the cartels will get into the weapons business and we'll have an even bigger problem on our Southern border. (You're familiar with Nuevo Laredo, yes? That's the stone cold reality).
> ...


Finally, someone has a legitimate answer.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Rights do not come from government.
> 
> Government abridges or violates those rights; but it does not grant them.


By definition, rights come from the state. They are simply legal entitlements.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Weapons ownership is a basic human right, the oldest such right, older even that the species itself.
> 
> Just governments have no fear of their citizens and thus no desire to steal their guns.
> 
> It's not complicated.
> 
> It's a freedom thing, so you can't understand.


Like I tell others, rights are legal entitlements protected by the state.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Human rights cannot be granted neither by the State nor by Nintendo.


That is what they are, go educate yourself on rights.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Because you will always lack the support to do it. lol... The end


I don't support doing it and many states(countries) have the tendency to ban guns to their citizens.

----------


## Midgardian

> That is what they are, go educate yourself on rights.


You need to be educated on rights.

Go read the Declaration of Independence and learn the definition of "unalienable".

If a right is unalienable it can neither be granted nor taken away.

It may be temporarily denied, but that is a trait of an illegitimate government.

A legitimate government has one sole purpose and function - _to secure the unalienable rights of the people_.

Illegitimate governments get replaced - history is full of their carcasses.

----------

Rickity Plumber (08-16-2016)

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Ignorant in what way, that I believe the right to own a firearm is as inherent as the right to breath ?


You said this, "_When your breathing is deemed illegal, I'll think about it". 
_States can and have banned firearms, and without banning breathing. Apparently, you don't want to answer the question.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> The state hasn't given anyone any rights. We are born with our rights. 
> 
> I think this guy is Gersh Kuntman.
> 
> Or maybe, the priests a fag.


You are born with your rights if you were born in a state protecting a legal entitlement applying to all of its citizens.
Mocking me isn't gonna get you anywhere.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> the right to bear arms pre-existed the government...
> 
> you cannot lay claim to something you never had.
> 
> the 2nd merely re-affirms that existence.


Your assuming the existence of natural rights. I am talking about legal rights. 
That is your assumption, but we are not talking about unproven concepts here.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> im open to others ideas.
> 
> im open to rejecting them if i disagree as well...
> 
> if everybody else thought it was a good idea to jump off a cliff, should it be my response as well?
> 
> everybody else is NOT me...nor i, them.


I am sure your like most who, no matter how much evidence is brought against your views, you will always reject it. That is not being open minded. 
Jumping off a cliff is a false equivalency.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> better question is why it should be.
> 
> go!


Same question.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> You need to be educated on rights.
> 
> Go read the Declaration of Independence and learn the definition of "unalienable".
> 
> If a right is unalienable it can neither be granted nor taken away.
> 
> It may be temporarily denied, but that is a trait of an illegitimate government.
> 
> A legitimate government has one sole purpose and function - _to secure the unalienable rights of the people_.
> ...


No, I was thinking that many on here need to be educated on rights. Like I told someone else on here, I am not discussing "natural rights", they are an unproven concept that isn't related to this discussion on the forum. Legal rights are what I am talking about and they relate somewhat to the question I asked. 
Do your research on rights and come back later to discuss it.

----------


## Crunch

Time to flush this turd.

----------



----------


## Midgardian

> I am not discussing "natural rights".


That is because you have no concept whatsoever as to what constitutes a right.

If a right is not natural then it is artificial.

If it is artificial than it can be created or destroyed arbitrarily.

If it can be created or destroyed arbitrarily then it is not a right to begin with.

All unalienable rights arise from natural law.

----------

Mgunner (08-16-2016),Rutabaga (08-16-2016)

----------


## Knightkore

Rather than ban guns how about adding an addendum to the 2nd Amendment, that all Americans MUST be given a firearm of their choosing by the federal government in order to properly exercise this freedom, they will be given free unrestricted training as necessary and free ammo that is standard to the firearm the person chooses.....any other firearm they choose to own/buy will be paid for and maintained by them, however with the America's standard firearm amendment they can get training and ammo at a discount.....exceptions would be felons, illegals, etc.....

----------


## Midgardian

Swag is stolen property.

I wonder if the priest has received the fruits of a gun theft.

----------


## Captain Kirk!

Looks like Gersh is gone.

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> No, I was thinking that many on here need to be educated on rights. Like I told someone else on here, I am not discussing "natural rights", they are an unproven concept that isn't related to this discussion on the forum. Legal rights are what I am talking about and they relate somewhat to the question I asked. 
> Do your research on rights and come back later to discuss it.


Are you the "rights" professor? The "rights" King of Schling? Maybe you are the "rights" Swinging D. 

Either way, your attitude comes across as:

1) Holier Than Thou

2) Better Than Thou

3) More educated than thou

4) More Informed than Thou

5) More Attitude=equals smaller Johnson. 

6) Especially more Boorish than thou

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> Swag is stolen property.
> 
> I wonder if the priest has received the fruits of a gun theft.



Prince of Swag . . . 1970's style

----------

Midgardian (08-16-2016)

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

> Justin Theroux, is that you behind those goggles?



 Jennifer makes my heart thump.

  ( sigh ) 







 And she has GREAT legs. ( I'm a legs guy ) 






























   Geeze she is so good looking.....gotta love her smile.









 :Joe

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> Jennifer makes my heart thump.
> 
>   ( sigh ) 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Coulda fooled me . . .

----------


## Rutabaga

> *I am sure your like most who, no matter how much evidence is brought against your views, you will always reject it.* That is not being open minded. 
> Jumping off a cliff is a false equivalency.




"I am sure your like most who, no matter how much evidence is brought against your views, you will always reject it".

first off,,other than  question,,what evidence of anything have you supplied?


second,,to the bold,,,dont you see the irony there?

i do.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Same question.


no,,its not...

----------


## Crunch

> I am sure your like most who, no matter how much evidence is brought against your views, you will always reject it. That is not being open minded. 
> *Jumping off a cliff* is a false equivalency.


Try it and tell us how it works out for you

----------

Joe Hallenbeck (08-16-2016),Rickity Plumber (08-16-2016),Rutabaga (08-16-2016)

----------


## squidward

> You said this, "_When your breathing is deemed illegal, I'll think about it". 
> _States can and have banned firearms, and without banning breathing. Apparently, you don't want to answer the question.


Oh sweetie,....... you asked if I thought firearms should be banned from the public. That question has been answered. 
Whether or not some states ban them is irrelevant to your question or my answer.

Next time phrase your leading question better, so you don't look like an ameture college dork

----------


## Mgunner

> The legal system is plum full of Ulterior Motives, and has a long cord strapped to the American Public whom have their hands tied behind their backs.
> 
>   The legal system can do no wrong - hates to feel guilty - denies wrongdoing - backtracks over their mistakes and fallacies - and has many agents.
> 
>    Find the lowest common denominator ( LCD ). Connect the LCD with other instances, events, people and places.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're both right lol... I don't understand the disconnect here.

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> oh sweetie,....... You asked if i thought firearms should be banned from the public. That question has been answered. 
> Whether or not some states ban them is irrelevant to your question or my answer.
> 
> Next time phrase your leading question better, so you don't look like an ameture college dork


schwing!

----------


## Mgunner

> Did this post have some kind of point?  It's not clear to me what position you're presenting here.
> 
> The Constitution grants NO rights of any kind.
> 
> None.
> 
> Not one.
> 
> It limits how much the government can intrude on them.


I disagree somewhat. The Constitution establishes the power ceded by the States to the Central government. The Bill of Rights documents the rights identified by the People, as they ceded State power, that would never come under the scope of power or influence of the Central authority. How the claim to have those rights, God given, natural, etc, really has no bearing on the fact that the central authority can't flippin touch them lol.

----------


## Mgunner

> Ah.
> 
> Question answered.
> 
> You're wrong.
> 
> Problem solved.


Yeah he's wrong... Totally agree. The 4th Amendment wasn't a grant... It was claimed in writing by the signers that represented each State that ceded very specific authority as detailed under the Articles.

----------

Rutabaga (08-18-2016)

----------


## Mgunner

> And people are just going to stay isolated and accept this? There will be entire states that will not play along. It's not about being tough. Most people are not going to surrender their guns.


If the progs go that route we head for the exit door... Of the Union... Lol...

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

> You're both right lol... I don't understand the disconnect here.



 Not always.....but money plays a huge role in the American Justice System.

 If you have the money.....you can get off scott free. 

 John Gotti got off of charges by the US Government many times........that the average citizen could not have.

 Large corporations get off totally free, or a small fine, when the average business owner whom would have committed the same crimes ; would have been sent to prison and heavily fined.

  Thats right, our justice system and our courts are not perfect and certainly not infallible. The larger the population or area, the more politics comes into the roles in courts. The President of the United States, a Mayor, A Senator or a Congressman........having bearing and/or influence.....on a Judges decision, instead of the Judge making a lawful decision that is unbiased, unprejudicial, and without influence.



        :Joe

----------


## hoytmonger

> That is what a "right" is, when the state can grant rights. Natural rights are unproven concepts.


Natural rights are indeed a proven concept. All people have a right to life, liberty and property. To infringe on these rights is a crime... which makes the state a criminal concept.

----------

Rutabaga (08-18-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> That is what a "right" is, when the state can grant rights. Natural rights are unproven concepts.



"unproven concepts"

"faith" is also an unproven concept,,like love or hate etc..

we cannot see the intangible, but we can see its effects...


like the wind blowing through the trees, we cant see the wind,,only its effect on the branches, leaves..

but its real...

my perceived right to self defense supersedes your perceived right to limit that.

i know this to be true and factual,,as you only need read this to know the truth.

no opinion nor law changes that...

----------

hoytmonger (08-16-2016)

----------


## Mgunner

> And the state protects it. Without the state, we wouldn't have a "right" to bear arms. That is what a right is, a legal entitlement.


Wrong. The States ceded to the Central government very specific and enumerated powers. They listed them under Articles 1, 2, 3 in the Constitution. The founders then attached the Bill of Rights stating that not onl are the powers the we have listed in the Articles the only power ceded to the Centra government, all remaining power being that of the States, but the Rights listed in the Bill of Rights are most especially never to come under the authority of the Central authority. They then dropped the mic and signed the document. The States, as in each of the 50 sovereign States, have almost all written the right to keep and bear arms into their Constitutions. All States have Constitutions since they are... Yanno... Sovereign. The States protect that right. The Fed (or the STATE) lacks the authority to do anything in that regard. See the difference?

----------


## hoytmonger

> Like I tell others, rights are legal entitlements protected by the state.


The state is a criminal enterprise, it doesn't protect anything but it tries to control everything.

----------

LFD (08-16-2016),squidward (08-16-2016)

----------


## LFD

> Wrong. The States ceded to the Central government very specific and enumerated powers.


He isn't talking about those states.

----------


## LFD

The only gun control I could get behind is if someone had a tactical ballistic missile stationed in their garage. 

Gun control is for those that unquestionably support the state. The citizenry cannot fight back with just sticks and stones.

----------


## Mgunner

> Like I tell others, rights are legal entitlements protected by the state.


No they are protected by the People who are represented in the State government. The State isn't a living being. It is a structure. People can try to forcibly remove guns from the possession of others but the oppressed will just find other weapons if guns are confiscated. You better think long and hard before you go down this path in this country because I guarantee you once you do it will be the bloodiest period in history.

----------


## Mgunner

> That is what they are, go educate yourself on rights.


No they aren't.

----------


## Mgunner

> Not always.....but money plays a huge role in the American Justice System.
> 
>  If you have the money.....you can get off scott free. 
> 
>  John Gotti got off of charges by the US Government many times........that the average citizen could not have.
> 
>  Large corporations get off totally free, or a small fine, when the average business owner whom would have committed the same crimes ; would have been sent to prison and heavily fined.
> 
>   Thats right, our justice system and our courts are not perfect and certainly not infallible. The larger the population or area, the more politics comes into the roles in courts. The President of the United States, a Mayor, A Senator or a Congressman........having bearing and/or influence.....on a Judges decision, instead of the Judge making a lawful decision that is unbiased, unprejudicial, and without influence.
> ...


You are correct when discussing Local, State, or Federal law or civil law but not when it comes to the BoR. Now, I do agree that the bastards/bitches in black robes have usurped authority never ceded to them by the States. But then we are talking tyranny and not republicanism.

----------


## Mgunner

> He isn't talking about those states.


I know that and even explained it.

----------


## squidward

> Without the state, we wouldn't have a "right" to bear arms.


Now that's extra silly.
Thanks for the funnies

----------

hoytmonger (08-17-2016)

----------


## Midgardian

> The only gun control I could get behind is if someone had a tactical ballistic missile stationed in their garage.


What if I wanted to arm my SU-27 before taking off from my aircraft carrier?

http://www.wired.com/2010/01/own-the...on-your-block/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...s-illustrious/

----------


## Joe Hallenbeck

> usurped authority never ceded to them by the States.



 What is up with the $100.00 words, that not only others - but you keep repeating? Key word is repeating.


        :Joe

----------


## Midgardian

> What is up with the $100.00 words, that not only others - but you keep repeating? Key word is repeating.
> 
> 
>         :Joe


$100 words?

Do you have a limited vocabulary?

----------


## Midgardian

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious has been an actual word for 30 years.

----------


## Crunch

> Oh sweetie,....... you asked if I thought firearms should be banned from the public. That question has been answered. 
> Whether or not some states ban them is irrelevant to your question or my answer.
> 
> Next time phrase your leading question better, so you don't look like an ameture college dork


Pajama Boy strikes again, huh?

----------

squidward (08-17-2016)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Rather than ban guns how about adding an addendum to the 2nd Amendment, that all Americans MUST be given a firearm of their choosing by the federal government in order to properly exercise this freedom, they will be given free unrestricted training as necessary and free ammo that is standard to the firearm the person chooses.....any other firearm they choose to own/buy will be paid for and maintained by them, however with the America's standard firearm amendment they can get training and ammo at a discount.....exceptions would be felons, illegals, etc.....



And should every American also be given their own printing press and microphone?

----------

Knightkore (08-17-2016)

----------


## Sled Dog

> I disagree somewhat. The Constitution establishes the power ceded by the States to the Central government. The Bill of Rights documents the rights identified by the People, as they ceded State power, that would never come under the scope of power or influence of the Central authority. How the claim to have those rights, God given, natural, etc, really has no bearing on the fact that the central authority can't flippin touch them lol.


There is not one word in the Constitution that implies any of the rights listed explicitly were "granted" by the Constitution or any other human agency.

None.

----------

Rutabaga (08-18-2016)

----------


## Sled Dog

> $100 words?
> 
> Do you have a limited vocabulary?


No.

He has a VERY expensive dictionary.

----------

Crunch (08-17-2016)

----------


## Knightkore

> And should every American also be given their own printing press and microphone?


Youtube.  Smartphones.  Computers and printers.  One could print out a magazine from home, though since print media is dying, we're back to the internet.  And it really is kinda scary that some people have that power.....oh yeah Facebook.....

----------


## Dan40

> Oh sweetie,....... you asked if I thought firearms should be banned from the public. That question has been answered. 
> Whether or not some states ban them is irrelevant to your question or my answer.
> 
> Next time phrase your leading question better, so you don't look like an ameture college dork


Very difficult for people to keep from revealing their true selves.  Dorks, dork out.  A rule of life.

POLITICIANS are superb at keeping their true salves hidden, but they're losing it.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> That is because you have no concept whatsoever as to what constitutes a right.
> 
> If a right is not natural then it is artificial.
> 
> If it is artificial than it can be created or destroyed arbitrarily.
> 
> If it can be created or destroyed arbitrarily then it is not a right to begin with.
> 
> All unalienable rights arise from natural law.


A right is a legal entitlement. Not talking about "natural rights". Define right for me then.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> "I am sure your like most who, no matter how much evidence is brought against your views, you will always reject it".
> 
> first off,,other than  question,,what evidence of anything have you supplied?
> 
> second,,to the bold,,,dont you see the irony there?
> 
> i do.


You said your open to other ideas, I find that hard to believe.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> no,,its not...


Why should guns be banned?
Why shouldn't guns be banned?
Same idea.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Oh sweetie,....... you asked if I thought firearms should be banned from the public. That question has been answered. 
> Whether or not some states ban them is irrelevant to your question or my answer.
> 
> Next time phrase your leading question better, so you don't look like an ameture college dork


Not by you. In your ignorant conservative(not specifically calling you one) minds, someone smarter looks like a dork.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> "unproven concepts"
> 
> "faith" is also an unproven concept,,like love or hate etc..
> 
> we cannot see the intangible, but we can see its effects...
> 
> 
> like the wind blowing through the trees, we cant see the wind,,only its effect on the branches, leaves..
> 
> ...


Natural rights are not provable, its your faith, can't know it to be factual.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> A right is a legal entitlement. Not talking about "natural rights". Define right for me then.


If you're not talking about Natural Law, then you're talking about codified, enumerated rights.

Rights are not given by government.  Enumerated rights are actions declared by the Framers and those who followed, which come from the Natural Rights of Man; and that government may not interfere with.

The right to life is one right; the right to property another.  To protect these two basic rights endowed by the Creator, the right to self-defense with arms, is a basic enumerated right.

Government didn't give these rights.  They ARE, in Nature.  Take them away and Man does not flourish.  He languishes.  Recognize them and Man and his society do better.

The task of the philosopher and the political scientist who follows him, is to craft a government which respects Natural Law.  That the government, the society, and the people therein may all prosper.

Denial of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a denial of a basic human right; of Natural Law; and also of the enumerated rights on which this nation was founded and under which it prospered.

----------

Rutabaga (08-18-2016)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Natural rights are not provable, its your faith, can't know it to be factual.


Wiser men than you claimed they are.  Described how they are.  Demonstrated that they are, with historical observations.

If you think you're wiser than Locke and de Montesquieu, then...let's see what it is YOU have had published.  Put YOUR theses out for all to see.

I think we've already seen them.  Rights come from government and we need to "adjust" those rights.

That's not new; that's been the chant of dictators since pre-history.

----------

Rutabaga (08-18-2016)

----------


## Priest of Swag

> The state is a criminal enterprise, it doesn't protect anything but it tries to control everything.


States indeed can protect legal entitlements.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> No they are protected by the People who are represented in the State government. The State isn't a living being. It is a structure. People can try to forcibly remove guns from the possession of others but the oppressed will just find other weapons if guns are confiscated. You better think long and hard before you go down this path in this country because I guarantee you once you do it will be the bloodiest period in history.


That's the state, established and recognized government.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> No they aren't.


Define "rights" for me then, I would like to know what you think they are.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Now that's extra silly.
> Thanks for the funnies


Its true, by definition, I am correct.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Your assuming the existence of natural rights. I am talking about legal rights. 
> That is your assumption, but we are not talking about unproven concepts here.


All legitimate government will endeavor to align natural rights and political rights.

"When government becomes destructive of these ends"..... ever hear those words?

The answer is, there would be no need for political rights at all if natural rights didn't exist. The only reason for political rights, is the existence of natural rights. There is no other reason.

And if you don't believe natural rights exist, come on over and try to fuck with my family, I'll leave you convinced.

----------

Rutabaga (08-18-2016)

----------


## Priest of Swag

> If you're not talking about Natural Law, then you're talking about codified, enumerated rights.


Yes, that's what rights are. 



> Rights are not given by government. Enumerated rights are actions declared by the Framers and those who followed, which come from the Natural Rights of Man; and that government may not interfere with.


If rights, by definition, are legal entitlements, then they are from the state and can be created through the legal process. Before the framers, those rights didn't exist. Only constructed by people and protected as legal entitlements. 



> The right to life is one right; the right to property another. To protect these two basic rights endowed by the Creator, the right to self-defense with arms, is a basic enumerated right.


You definitely don't know what your talking about. A mistake made by many religious people. 



> Government didn't give these rights. They ARE, in Nature. Take them away and Man does not flourish. He languishes. Recognize them and Man and his society do better.


Rights are simply words on paper, that are recognized by the state. The right to bear arms is a human creation just as guns and weapons are themselves.  



> The task of the philosopher and the political scientist who follows him, is to craft a government which respects Natural Law. That the government, the society, and the people therein may all prosper.


Recognizing certain right isn't what creates a prosperous society. I think you should learn a little more on society before you post stuff about it.



> Denial of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a denial of a basic human right; of Natural Law; and also of the enumerated rights on which this nation was founded and under which it prospered.


If I move to Japan, I don't have the right to bear arms anymore. Your not naturally entitled to anything, only in your dream world.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Wiser men than you claimed they are.  Described how they are.  Demonstrated that they are, with historical observations.
> 
> If you think you're wiser than Locke and de Montesquieu, then...let's see what it is YOU have had published.  Put YOUR theses out for all to see.
> 
> I think we've already seen them.  Rights come from government and we need to "adjust" those rights.
> 
> That's not new; that's been the chant of dictators since pre-history.


What some intellectual people believed doesn't prove anything. Just an argument from arrogance and the same BS atheists pull when they say scientists all agree and proven their claims.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> All legitimate government will endeavor to align natural rights and political rights.
> 
> "When government becomes destructive of these ends"..... ever hear those words?
> 
> The answer is, there would be no need for political rights at all if natural rights didn't exist. The only reason for political rights, is the existence of natural rights. There is no other reason.
> 
> And if you don't believe natural rights exist, come on over and try to fuck with my family, I'll leave you convinced.


Your assuming the existence of natural rights right there. By saying "all legitimate governments". 
Legal rights exist because people wanted them too. Its that simple. However, if natural rights existed, there would be no need for legal rights. 
I am not convinced of lies.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Natural rights are not provable, its your faith, can't know it to be factual.


Sorry, but that's just stupid.

Human beings are wired genetically to require certain things, *in order to live together in anything resembling peace and harmony*. 

You're just being an obstinate idiot if you're saying "there are no natural rights", that would be like trying to deny your own biology, it would be the apex of human arrogance.

No, son, you are wired to require certain things, and the minute you start living in any kind of society, you will encounter conditions that will make you want to fight for those things.

Altruism is wired into human beings because it confers a survival advantage. Murder is also wired into human beings, for the same reason.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> What some intellectual people believed doesn't prove anything. Just an argument from arrogance and the same BS atheists pull when they say scientists all agree and proven their claims.


What I'm getting from you is how intelligent you are, that you're so over all that religious bullshit.

And this without considering the Enlightenment philosophers and their observations.  No, you've just closed the door on all that - you KNOW BETTER, rights come from GOVERNMENT!

Well, that's not new, either.  That's rooted in feudalism; and before that, the practices of dictators and chieftains.  They didn't call them "rights."  Peons and serfs, and before that, just lesser tribe members, didn't HAVE anything approaching "rights."  They belonged to the chieftain, body and life, until the chieftain was killed by a stronger challenger.

Philosophers tried to divine why such a life didn't work as well as more-egalitarian groups did, and why human groups that recognized each person's prerogatives did so much better.

YOU don't CARE.  You pretend to be above religion - but you're deeply religious.  You worship GOVERNMENT.  The State is your god; and your god is a jealous god.

----------

Rutabaga (08-18-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> You said your open to other ideas, I find that hard to believe.




im open to perusing them...

not to automatically agree with them..

i guess you dont know how things work?

----------


## Rutabaga

> Why should guns be banned?
> Why shouldn't guns be banned?
> Same idea.



but not the same question, as i pointed out and you denied..

----------

Knightkore (08-18-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Natural rights are not provable, its your faith, can't know it to be factual.




neither are laws...just concepts written on paper...

----------

Knightkore (08-18-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Yes, that's what rights are. 
> 
> If rights, by definition, are legal entitlements, then they are from the state and can be created through the legal process. Before the framers, those rights didn't exist. Only constructed by people and protected as legal entitlements. 
> 
> You definitely don't know what your talking about. A mistake made by many religious people. 
> 
> Rights are simply words on paper, that are recognized by the state. The right to bear arms is a human creation just as guns and weapons are themselves.  
> 
> Recognizing certain right isn't what creates a prosperous society. I think you should learn a little more on society before you post stuff about it.
> ...





you are arguing semantics...

"natural right" being case in point...

you can call it whatever pleases you...

it will not change what most know to be true...

----------


## Rutabaga

> Not always.....but money plays a huge role in the American Justice System.
> 
>  If you have the money.....you can get off scott free. 
> 
>  John Gotti got off of charges by the US Government many times........that the average citizen could not have.
> 
>  Large corporations get off totally free, or a small fine, when the average business owner whom would have committed the same crimes ; would have been sent to prison and heavily fined.
> 
>   Thats right, our justice system and our courts are not perfect and certainly not infallible. The larger the population or area, the more politics comes into the roles in courts. The President of the United States, a Mayor, A Senator or a Congressman........having bearing and/or influence.....on a Judges decision, instead of the Judge making a lawful decision that is unbiased, unprejudicial, and without influence.
> ...





you buy justice like you buy toilet paper...


go cheap,,and you'll get hemorrhoids...

----------


## Dan40

> Why should guns be banned?
> Why shouldn't guns be banned?
> Same idea.


Why should knives be banned?

Why shouldn't knives be banned?

When will liberals ever have an idea?

Why must liberals lie at all times about all subjects?

----------


## Captain Kirk!

Has the priest of fags left the building?

----------

Knightkore (08-18-2016)

----------


## MoiraB

I have a gun my son has one but I dont see a need for anything that can kill lots of people in a few seconds.

----------


## Captain Kirk!

> I have a gun my son has one but I dont see a need for anything that can kill lots of people in a few seconds.


What, you mean a like stack of dynamite, or a mob in Milwaukee?

----------

Rutabaga (08-18-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> I have a gun my son has one but I dont see a need for anything that can kill lots of people in a few seconds.




then only have a single shot firearm...

choice,,its a beautiful thing!

----------

hoytmonger (08-18-2016),LFD (08-18-2016)

----------


## MedicineBow

> I have a gun my son has one but I dont see a need for anything that can kill lots of people in a few seconds.


 There are many politicians that see you have no need for the firearms you own. 

 So, do you and your son have black powder firearms?

----------


## hoytmonger

> States indeed can protect legal entitlements.


More for some than for others... that's one of the problems with a state... it's a monopoly that can pick "winners" and "losers."

----------


## Dan40

> I have a gun my son has one but I dont see a need for anything that can kill lots of people in a few seconds.


In the USA there are NO legal firearms that can kill lots of people in a few seconds.  Semi-auto weapons fire only once per trigger pull, and doing that as fast as one can means they are not AIMING.  And shots fired from even 2 feet away miss when not aimed.

But MOST people including almost ALL politicians have no idea of the actually limited capability of firearms.

The well trained and practiced US Military fires off over 1,000,000 rounds in anger for every enemy wounded.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Sorry, but that's just stupid.
> 
> Human beings are wired genetically to require certain things, *in order to live together in anything resembling peace and harmony*. 
> 
> You're just being an obstinate idiot if you're saying "there are no natural rights", that would be like trying to deny your own biology, it would be the apex of human arrogance.
> 
> No, son, you are wired to require certain things, and the minute you start living in any kind of society, you will encounter conditions that will make you want to fight for those things.
> 
> Altruism is wired into human beings because it confers a survival advantage. Murder is also wired into human beings, for the same reason.


Give me a definition of natural rights, it sounds like your talking about "natural instincts". They aren't the same.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Give me a definition of natural rights, it sounds like your talking about "natural instincts". They aren't the same.


You've already rejected the correct definitions.

You have the right to your own opinions; but not to your own facts and definitions.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> What I'm getting from you is how intelligent you are, that you're so over all that religious bullshit.


I don't consider my self religious, and I believe most religious beliefs are BS. It doesn't make me arrogant. 



> And this without considering the Enlightenment philosophers and their observations. No, you've just closed the door on all that - you KNOW BETTER, rights come from GOVERNMENT!


That's what rights are. 



> Well, that's not new, either. That's rooted in feudalism; and before that, the practices of dictators and chieftains. They didn't call them "rights." Peons and serfs, and before that, just lesser tribe members, didn't HAVE anything approaching "rights." They belonged to the chieftain, body and life, until the chieftain was killed by a stronger challenger.


Never said it was. 



> YOU don't CARE. You pretend to be above religion - but you're deeply religious. You worship GOVERNMENT. The State is your god; and your god is a jealous god.


Really? You don't know my beliefs regarding the state then.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> im open to perusing them...
> 
> not to automatically agree with them..
> 
> i guess you dont know how things work?


I know the difference, most aren't open to other ideas.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> but not the same question, as i pointed out and you denied..


Obviously not the same exact question.
Why SHOULD guns be banned?
Why SHOULDN'T guns be banned?
They both are the same idea, relating to the topic of this thread. 
Do you refuse to answer the question?

----------


## hoytmonger

Without a state, an individual still has rights. A person's life is their own, a person's property is their own, a person's freedom is their own. To try to take any one of these from a person is a violation of their rights. This is both morally and socially accepted.

----------

Rutabaga (08-19-2016),squidward (08-18-2016)

----------


## Priest of Swag

> neither are laws...just concepts written on paper...


True, just written on paper and enforced by the state.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> you are arguing semantics...
> 
> "natural right" being case in point...
> 
> you can call it whatever pleases you...
> 
> it will not change what most know to be true...


Yes, and I know it to be true.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Why should knives be banned?
> 
> Why shouldn't knives be banned?
> 
> When will liberals ever have an idea?
> 
> Why must liberals lie at all times about all subjects?


This is about firearms, not knives. Liberals don't all share the belief that firearms should be banned. I am sure most disagree.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> More for some than for others... that's one of the problems with a state... it's a monopoly that can pick "winners" and "losers."


True, the state also has the power to take away their entitlements given as well. Its a monopoly of restricting and forcing.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> That's what rights are.


Since you know more than us, why do you ask us?

We have nothing to discuss.  You reject centuries of learning and then demand to know what these things are.

We told you.  You reject it.  And that, is that.






> Really? You don't know my beliefs regarding the state then.


And I'm not going to play Twenty Questions with the voluntarily ignorant and deliberately obtuse.

You can ask; or you can tell us; and I for one don't care one way or the other.

----------


## MedicineBow

> Obviously not the same exact question.
> Why SHOULD guns be banned?
> Why SHOULDN'T guns be banned?
> They both are the same idea, relating to the topic of this thread. 
> Do you refuse to answer the question?


 I'll wait for you to make the case for them being banned or not. This is a discussion board and we can talk about it or you can keep up with the childish play.

 If you don't have an opinion one way or another, why ask?

----------

JustPassinThru (08-18-2016),Rutabaga (08-19-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> I know the difference,* most aren't open to other ideas.*


*
*

as you have shown here...

----------


## Rutabaga

> Obviously not the same exact question.
> Why SHOULD guns be banned?
> Why SHOULDN'T guns be banned?
> They both are the same idea, relating to the topic of this thread. 
> Do you refuse to answer the question?




example:

when the 10 year ban on assault rifles, extended mags., bayonet lugs, folding stocks, pistol grips and a plethora of cosmetic items was in force,,i did not comply...no one i know did...

what i had PRIOR to the ban was legal,,after the ban was illegal, and then 10 years later, legal once more...

laws did nothing to deter me...i ignored them..as i will any future ones...

so no,,while the progs can pass laws,,,most gun owners have already said and led by example,,they will not comply...

and it will take men with guns to attempt to disarm other men with guns...

a sticky situation in reality...300 million guns in the hands of civilians...a military/police force made up of primarily gun owning citizens with little respect or use for progressives...

remember,,,in an uprising,,,progs always die first.

----------


## Rutabaga

> True, just written on paper and enforced by the state.



or when push comes to shove,,enforced by its citizens...

----------


## Knightkore

Another compromise.  How about anything on your property/house goes?  From a BB gun to a Howitzer or Tank or AA SAM.....

----------

Rutabaga (08-19-2016)

----------


## tiny1

> 1. Its a political site, these questions are valid. 
> 2. No.
> 3. Nope, but this isn't about the second amendment, putting the constitution aside, in any country, should firearms be banned to the public?
> 4. I am not, I guess I didn't know this site was full of ignorant conservatives.
> 
> I am not ignorant on society at all. However, you seem to be ignorant of my post.


OK not a troll.  Accepted.  But, you are, IMO an stupid, indoctrinated, mindless, liberal lemming, looking to score progpoints by dissing conservatives.  Grow up.
We cannot take the Constitution out of it, but if you are talking about banning guns world wide, what kind of stuff are you smoking?

----------

Knightkore (08-19-2016)

----------


## tiny1

> Like I tell others, rights are legal entitlements protected by the state.


Amazing.
So, your LIFE is a legal entitlement protected by the State?  They can't even protect their computers from being hacked, and you Trust them with your life.  How stupid is that?
Sheesh.  Why feed this stupidity?

----------

Knightkore (08-19-2016)

----------


## tiny1

> "unproven concepts"
> 
> "faith" is also an unproven concept,,like love or hate etc..
> 
> we cannot see the intangible, but we can see its effects...
> 
> 
> like the wind blowing through the trees, we cant see the wind,,only its effect on the branches, leaves..
> 
> ...


Of course he says it is unproven.  If he freely admits that rights are a proven concept, he cannot advocate that they be taken away.  That is what libturds do.  They claim something is not a right, so they can take it away, at their whim.

----------

Rutabaga (08-19-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Another compromise.  How about anything on your property/house goes?  From a BB gun to a Howitzer or Tank or AA SAM.....



well, you can own a fully functioning tank and ammo,,or a battleship or fighter jet...howitzer, machine gun, rail gun, [nasty one there] bazooka, rpg, plastic explosives, or most anything the military has...


just fill out the forms, pass the background checks, pay the tax and there you go!

the largest collection of privately owned tanks and military equipment etc. is in,,,wait for it,,,,california!

----------

Knightkore (08-19-2016),MrMike (08-19-2016)

----------


## MrMike

I actually have a tater (spud) gun...

 :Headbang:

----------

Knightkore (08-19-2016),Rutabaga (08-19-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> I actually have a tater (spud) gun...



is it registered?

[my salad shooter is]

----------

MrMike (08-19-2016)

----------


## Knightkore

> well, you can own a fully functioning tank and ammo,,or a battleship or fighter jet...howitzer, machine gun, rail gun, [nasty one there] bazooka, rpg, plastic explosives, or most anything the military has...
> 
> 
> just fill out the forms, pass the background checks, pay the tax and there you go!
> 
> the largest collection of privately owned tanks and military equipment etc. is in,,,wait for it,,,,california!


Aren't they the violent bunch.....so much for the gun free zones.....

James Garner was in a movie called Tank.  Very funny.

----------

Rutabaga (08-19-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Aren't they the violent bunch.....so much for the gun free zones.....
> 
> James Garner was in a movie called Tank.  Very funny.



you would think that with all that military equipment scattered throughout the states in private hands would be a point of concern..

fact is,,most people dont even know its been that way forever...

think about movies...they dont go to the military when they need a functioning tank, fighter aircraft, bombs, bullets and bayoneted... 


you just rent them like from avis...

----------

Knightkore (08-19-2016)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Aren't they the violent bunch.....so much for the gun free zones.....
> 
> James Garner was in a movie called Tank.  Very funny.




heres some for sale, alot of other military war machines as well...


Ex-Military vehicles | Army spare parts | Military equipment by Marcus Glenn

----------

Knightkore (08-19-2016)

----------


## dnsmith

> Should the state ban firearms to civilians? If so, why? I am sure most will disagree, but there are some that believe firearms are better off being illegal.


The short answer to the op is, NOT NO BUT HELL NO! Our founders put the 2nd amendment in for a purpose, defense of country under certain situations, AND, to give citizens the power to eliminate a tyrannical government. The government already has too much power, time to trim it back some, OR MAYBE A LOT.

----------

Rutabaga (08-19-2016)

----------


## Dan40

> This is about firearms, not knives. Liberals don't all share the belief that firearms should be banned. I am sure most disagree.



NO it is not about firearms, you want to know what the government can and cannot ban.

Guns are protected under the 2nd Amendment.  And thus cannot be banned without changing the Constitution.

Knives kill 600% more people per year than rifles and are not protected under any amendment.

Fists and feet also kill more people per year than rifles.  MANY more.  Fists and feet are not specifically protected under the 2nd Amendments but a case could be made that they are protected due to being appendages of people.

You sophomoric trolls that insist on asking stupid questions just to take up board time are completely boring.

And now you TOO go on ignore with the rest of the cabal of lying liberal idiots.

Bu
Bye!

----------

KSigMason (08-19-2016)

----------


## LFD

> heres some for sale, alot of other military war machines as well...
> 
> 
> Ex-Military vehicles | Army spare parts | Military equipment by Marcus Glenn


They all have their weapon system or armament cache stripped if they are being sold in the United States.

No idea about the United Kingdom, since that is where that company is based. 

That site only has two vehicles for sale. A Samson engineering vehicle that was obscure even in WW2, and some ATV I never even heard of (and I usually know of every military vehicle there is)

----------


## Priest of Swag

> I'll wait for you to make the case for them being banned or not. This is a discussion board and we can talk about it or you can keep up with the childish play.
> 
>  If you don't have an opinion one way or another, why ask?


To know what other people think.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> [/B]
> 
> as you have shown here...


Did I? or are you just saying that because you like to think that?

----------


## Priest of Swag

> example:
> 
> when the 10 year ban on assault rifles, extended mags., bayonet lugs, folding stocks, pistol grips and a plethora of cosmetic items was in force,,i did not comply...no one i know did...
> 
> what i had PRIOR to the ban was legal,,after the ban was illegal, and then 10 years later, legal once more...
> 
> laws did nothing to deter me...i ignored them..as i will any future ones...
> 
> so no,,while the progs can pass laws,,,most gun owners have already said and led by example,,they will not comply...
> ...


Ok, good.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> OK not a troll.  Accepted.  But, you are, IMO an stupid, indoctrinated, mindless, liberal lemming, looking to score progpoints by dissing conservatives.  Grow up.
> We cannot take the Constitution out of it, but if you are talking about banning guns world wide, what kind of stuff are you smoking?


I am not stupid, not indoctrinated, not mindless(i obviously have a mind), not a liberal, and am not looking to score by dissing conservatives. I am surprised you didn't get even one correct. Just because I said something you don't like, doesn't mean I am all of what you said.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Amazing.
> So, your LIFE is a legal entitlement protected by the State?  They can't even protect their computers from being hacked, and you Trust them with your life.  How stupid is that?
> Sheesh.  Why feed this stupidity?


My right to life is, if the country I live in has a right to life(which it does). Me saying that the state protects legal entitlements doesn't mean I trust them with my life.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> NO it is not about firearms, you want to know what the government can and cannot ban.


The state can ban whatever it wants, the U.S. is one exception due to the second amendment, but this isn't just about the U.S. in particular.



> Guns are protected under the 2nd Amendment. And thus cannot be banned without changing the Constitution.


True, and if the state tried to force it, this would create outrage.



> Knives kill 600% more people per year than rifles and are not protected under any amendment.


Is that an argument against a firearm ban?



> Fists and feet also kill more people per year than rifles. MANY more. Fists and feet are not specifically protected under the 2nd Amendments but a case could be made that they are protected due to being appendages of people.


Really? Either way, firearms are way more deadly. 



> You sophomoric trolls that insist on asking stupid questions just to take up board time are completely boring.


It actually isn't a stupid question. 



> And now you TOO go on ignore with the rest of the cabal of lying liberal idiots.


I am not a liberal and don't associate with them.

----------


## Rutabaga

> They all have their weapon system or armament cache stripped if they are being sold in the United States.
> 
> No idea about the United Kingdom, since that is where that company is based. 
> 
> That site only has two vehicles for sale. A Samson engineering vehicle that was obscure even in WW2, and some ATV I never even heard of (and I usually know of every military vehicle there is)




its one site of thousands...

and while some are non-firing,,many are fully functioning...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Za9WhCfE5REt5Q


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...I69RdoDZrGWBiw

----------


## Rutabaga

> Did I? or are you just saying that because you like to think that?



im saying that because its what you demonstrate..

its ironic.

----------


## tiny1

> I am not stupid, not indoctrinated, not mindless(i obviously have a mind), not a liberal, and am not looking to score by dissing conservatives. I am surprised you didn't get even one correct. Just because I said something you don't like, doesn't mean I am all of what you said.


Horse manure.  I was born at night, but not last night.
You come here in all your pomposity to teach us poor conservatives how much smarter than us, you are.  That, IMO, is STUPID,and yes, you have been insulting conservatives.  
And, for the record, I live way out in Rural NC, so what you think, feel do and/or say, is of absolutely no consequence to me.  The fact that you seem to think your every word is Wisdom, to me, is mindless.  My opinion of you, notwithstanding, is MY opinion.   Not a liberal, puh-leeze.  Never heard a moderate nor a conservative claim our rights come from Gooberment.  THAT is a liberal position.  They teach it in gooberment schools.  
So, IMO, I have them all correct.  Just because I say something you don't like, does not mean you are not all of those things.  Perception is reality, and this is what people perceive you to be.

----------


## tiny1

> My right to life is, if the country I live in has a right to life(which it does). Me saying that the state protects legal entitlements doesn't mean I trust them with my life.


So, you are in effect, saying that you depend on the Gooberment for your life?  Why?  Death Penalty?  If your right to life is a gooberment entitlement, then they can remove that right, just because its Saturday?  With no consequences?  That is the DUMBEST thing I have ever heard any fool say, ever.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> My right to life is, if the country I live in has a right to life(which it does). Me saying that the state protects legal entitlements doesn't mean I trust them with my life.


So I guess in your worldview, the right to life is a right GRANTED BY THE STATE - and which can be taken away with legal action.

So you'd be okay with modifying the Constitution and law to allow Bills of Attainder - which would let Congress or State assemblies vote a sentence of Death onto you because they found it convenient or entertaining so to do.

----------


## LFD

> Horse manure.  I was born at night, but not last night.
> You come here in all your pomposity to teach us poor conservatives how much smarter than us, you are.  That, IMO, is STUPID,and yes, you have been insulting conservatives.  
> And, for the record, I live way out in Rural NC, so what you think, feel do and/or say, is of absolutely no consequence to me.  The fact that you seem to think your every word is Wisdom, to me, is mindless.  My opinion of you, notwithstanding, is MY opinion.


The peasants paradox. Perceiving all intelligent discourse as elitist arrogance. 

If you go by his definition of rights being legal entitlements, then he is correct in saying rights come from the state. If you want to defeat his argument, then you need to convince him to use a different definition than the one he is using.

----------


## LFD

Rights can be founded upon a legal or moral basis.

If you go by a legal basis, then he is correct in saying rights come from the state. If you go by a moral basis, then you guys are correct in saying that rights exist without a state. 

Personally I find the theory of _natural_ rights to be a flawed philosophical concept, because the universe isn't obligated to owe anybody shit. I will always defend liberty to the utmost extent either way.

----------

Priest of Swag (08-20-2016)

----------


## Sled Dog

> My right to life is, if the country I live in has a right to life(which it does). Me saying that the state protects legal entitlements doesn't mean I trust them with my life.


So you're implying that your "rights" are dependent on your address?

That works for THC and is clearly applicable to enlisted scum sailors who committed similar but far less severe crimes than THC did, but is that kind of world you really want to live in?

It must be, because that is always the word moron anarchists create for their masters.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Rights can be founded upon a legal or moral basis.
> 
> If you go by a legal basis, then he is correct in saying rights come from the state. If you go by a moral basis, then you guys are correct in saying that rights exist without a state. 
> 
> Personally I find the theory of _natural_ rights to be a flawed philosophical concept, because the universe isn't obligated to owe anybody shit. I will always defend liberty to the utmost extent either way.


Rights don't exist at all.

Go ahead, do a study and tell me how much the difference in weight is between the "right" to life and the "right" to keep and bare arms?

Rights are NEVER defined in a stateless context because they are always defined as limits on what the larger body politic is legally and morally allowed to do to the individual.

Rights certainly cannot exist in any kind of retarded anarchical nonsense.   "Might makes right" isn't a coherent definition.  Lack of coherency is a hallmark of anarchy and anarchists, of course.

----------


## LFD

> Rights don't exist at all.


Moral rights do exist.

Some things are plain evil to enact against other men. Like taking away another life without provocation.

----------


## squidward

> Personally I find the theory of _natural_ rights to be a flawed philosophical concept, because the universe isn't obligated to owe anybody shit. I will always defend liberty to the utmost extent either way.



A man said to the universe: 

Sir, I exist!

However, replied the universe, 

The fact has not created in me 

A sense of obligation.

Stephen Crane

----------

LFD (08-20-2016),Rutabaga (08-20-2016)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> Moral rights do exist.
> 
> Some things are plain evil to enact against other men. Like taking away another life without provocation.


You may THINK that moral rights exist. You think you have the right to life? Some BLM thug type ghetto punk pulls a piece out and proves you wrong. We have an inherent right to life or whatever right you think. Someone else CAN change that in an instant. The only constant is death.

----------


## hoytmonger

> You may THINK that moral rights exist. You think you have the right to life? Some BLM thug type ghetto punk pulls a piece out and proves you wrong. We have an inherent right to life or whatever right you think. Someone else CAN change that in an instant. The only constant is death.


You have the right to self defense as well.

I hadn't realized the Bureau of Land Management was infesting the ghetto as well.

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> You have the right to self defense as well.
> 
> I hadn't realized the Bureau of Land Management was infesting the ghetto as well.


That's right, the right to defend oneself. However, the Bureau of Land Management has nothing to do with my post. When I say "BLM", I mean the stoopid coons. 

Plenty of smart, intelligent, and real black people in this world as well as there are stoopid coons. You know the ones . . . they try to hop on a Presidential candidates motorcade. Yes, those nigs.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> im saying that because its what you demonstrate..
> 
> its ironic.


False.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> You come here in all your pomposity to teach us poor conservatives how much smarter than us, you are.  That, IMO, is STUPID,and yes, you have been insulting conservatives.


False. Saying something that conservatives disagree with is an insult to conservatives then I guess. 



> And, for the record, I live way out in Rural NC, so what you think, feel do and/or say, is of absolutely no consequence to me.


Ok, that is fine with me.



> The fact that you seem to think your every word is Wisdom, to me, is mindless.


I do indeed believe I am right about a lot of things(which is obviously possibly mostly false), but I don't believe that I am wiser than the people on this site.



> Never heard a moderate nor a conservative claim our rights come from Gooberment. THAT is a liberal position. They teach it in gooberment schools.


The liberal and conservative positions are your views on how society should be, not implying that there is natural rights or even a God. 
You are definitely looking at rights the wrong way. 



> So, IMO, I have them all correct.


But I say they are  all false, therefore they are false. It is this way because I know how I am, you don't. 



> Just because I say something you don't like, does not mean you are not all of those things. Perception is reality, and this is what people perceive you to be.


True, but I am not any of those things, that is why I denied it. You, however, didn't like what I say, so you assume all that.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> So, you are in effect, saying that you depend on the Gooberment for your life?


No, people don't need legal entitlements to survive.



> Why? Death Penalty? If your right to life is a gooberment entitlement, then they can remove that right, just because its Saturday? With no consequences?


Well, in the U.S., I am granted the right to life unless there is due process, so there turns out to be no contradiction in applying the death penalty. However, the state can take away rights(and may since the state is largely a corrupt entity). Who is to say there would be no consequences?

----------


## Priest of Swag

> So I guess in your worldview, the right to life is a right GRANTED BY THE STATE - and which can be taken away with legal action.


Yes.



> So you'd be okay with modifying the Constitution and law to allow Bills of Attainder - which would let Congress or State assemblies vote a sentence of Death onto you because they found it convenient or entertaining so to do.


No, and the death penalty doesn't contradict the constitution if that's what you mean.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> So you're implying that your "rights" are dependent on your address?


On the state(country) I live in, yes.



> That works for THC and is clearly applicable to enlisted scum sailors who committed similar but far less severe crimes than THC did, but is that kind of world you really want to live in?


Not necessarily.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Rights can be founded upon a legal or moral basis.
> 
> If you go by a legal basis, then he is correct in saying rights come from the state. If you go by a moral basis, then you guys are correct in saying that rights exist without a state. 
> 
> Personally I find the theory of _natural_ rights to be a flawed philosophical concept, because the universe isn't obligated to owe anybody shit. I will always defend liberty to the utmost extent either way.


Good point to make.

----------


## nonsqtr

"God is dead" - Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is dead" - God

----------

KSigMason (08-21-2016)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Yes.
> 
> No, and the death penalty doesn't contradict the constitution if that's what you mean.


No, smart guy, that is not what I mean.

Why don't you read up on what Bills of Attainder are. 

Of the experiences in England, where a number of persons were sent to the gallows simply because Parliament voted it; or because the King ordered it.  No crime committed; just an inconvenient person.

THAT was what the prohibition of Bills of Attainder is about - partially.  Because the Framers, unlike yourself, recognized Natural Rights, among them the right to Life.  As well as recognizing the importance of an equitable Rule of Law - which, since you so love and worship government power, probably reject as well.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Moral rights do exist.
> 
> Some things are plain evil to enact against other men. Like taking away another life without provocation.


Depends on your morality.

So what you're arguing is that rights are relative, not absolute.

And if rights are dependent upon something as ephemeral as a point of view, they don't exist at all.

Rights don't have a lightswitch.

----------


## Sled Dog

> On the state(country) I live in, yes.
> 
> Not necessarily.


Weasel.

That was a go/no-go situation, no overlap in the Venn diagram.

So you're wrong.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Good point to make.


It's a rotten point, and it's poorly made. Notice the linkage of "rights" and "owe". There is no such linkage. You clowns are pulling shit out of your ass and your arguments are falling flat on their face 'cause you have no idea what you're talking about.

*You* need to go study some primitive cultures. Take Cultural Anthropology 101, then come back and talk to us.

LFD's linkage with "owe" is exactly bassackwards. But then, "most" illogical ignorant people think this very same way.

There is no linkage between "rights" and "owe". What there is, is natural laws, and you will obey them and adhere to them whether you like it or not. You have no choice. The universe is made a certain way, and you're made a certain way, and you are what you are, and no amount of your willpower (or lack thereof) is going to change any of that.

Human beings are territorial. That's why property rights are necessary, and someone has to enforce them otherwise they're worthless. The role of the state is to enforce, not to grant.

Read the Constitution. There is no granting. All there is, is prohibitions. Government "shall not" interfere with speech, guns, and property. Government "shall" enforce even-handedly.

Governments do not "grant", they enforce. They enforce against the weenies who think they're above the law, and they enforce on those who pretend there is no law.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> No, smart guy, that is not what I mean.
> 
> Why don't you read up on what Bills of Attainder are. 
> 
> Of the experiences in England, where a number of persons were sent to the gallows simply because Parliament voted it; or because the King ordered it.  No crime committed; just an inconvenient person.
> 
> THAT was what the prohibition of Bills of Attainder is about - partially.  Because the Framers, unlike yourself, recognized Natural Rights, among them the right to Life.  As well as recognizing the importance of an equitable Rule of Law - which, since you so love and worship government power, probably reject as well.


You don't need to believe in natural rights to create a constitution prohibiting these kind of things. 
It simply doesn't matter to me anyways what the framers believed in. 
I don't love and worship government power, you are committing a fallacy by thinking that rights are all good to the point of wherever they come from, that entity is worthy of worship.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Weasel.
> 
> That was a go/no-go situation, no overlap in the Venn diagram.
> 
> So you're wrong.


I didn't get what you meant anyways, but yes, rights do depend on what country you live in.

----------


## Madison

Right to the point---question.
Should-firearms-be-banned-to-the-public?

My answer : NO. White American honest citizen should all have the right to get GUNS
*But in the case of *BLM and *muslims YES it should be banned for them. NoO firearms what so ever

----------


## Priest of Swag

> It's a rotten point, and it's poorly made. Notice the linkage of "rights" and "owe". There is no such linkage. You clowns are pulling shit out of your ass and your arguments are falling flat on their face 'cause you have no idea what you're talking about.


He did make a good point, you are trapped in that arrogant mindset that anything you disagree with is automatically rotten and poorly made. 
I know what I am talking about, not sure if you are though.



> *You need to go study some primitive cultures. Take Cultural Anthropology 101, then come back and talk to us.*


Cultural Anthropology doesn't change the definitions of rights.



> LFD's linkage with "owe" is exactly bassackwards. But then, "most" illogical ignorant people think this very same way.


Actually, no, in your mind, all people who disagree with you are illogical ignorant people. You are trapped in your arrogant mindset.



> There is no linkage between "rights" and "owe".


True, if you are not "owed" any rights.



> What there is, is natural laws, and you will obey them and adhere to them whether you like it or not. You have no choice. The universe is made a certain way, and you're made a certain way, and you are what you are, and no amount of your willpower (or lack thereof) is going to change any of that.


This is you expressing your view on moral entitlements, which in this case, you accept their existence. Also, natural law is a body of unchanging MORAL principles, not our nature and instincts. 



> Human beings are territorial. That's why property rights are necessary, and someone has to enforce them otherwise they're worthless. The role of the state is to enforce, not to grant.


You are supporting legal rights as well, so you turn out to agree with me on my definition. By saying you believe property rights are necessary, you are saying the state needs to give us property rights. You believe it is necessary by human nature. Its really the state protecting human natural instincts with rights. 
However, I would disagree that the state needs to exist for property rights since we don't need them to be territorial. Nevertheless, I see what you mean. 



> Read the Constitution. There is no granting. All there is, is prohibitions. Government "shall not" interfere with speech, guns, and property. Government "shall" enforce even-handedly.


It is worded this way because the framers believed in rights existing independent from us and it is the states job to enforce these rights(like what you believe).



> Governments do not "grant", they enforce. They enforce against the weenies who think they're above the law, and they enforce on those who pretend there is no law.


This is your view and I respect that, however, that doesn't mean I will start agreeing with you or that because I disagree I am an illogical ignorant person.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> im saying that because its what you demonstrate..
> 
> its ironic.


I pointed out earlier that most people aren't open to other ideas and then you say I demonstrate that. You know as well as I do that your saying that because you don't like what I say. You rightfully pointed out earlier that being open to others ideas doesn't mean agreeing with them. However, most are not even open to other ideas. You people just repeat the same stuff about natural rights and have no reason to believe in their existence, you just blindly accept it. I disagree and you say I am demonstrating not being open to your views. I don't demonstrate not being open, it turns out you just like to think that because your like many on this site who think whoever disagrees with them is automatically an illogical ignorant person.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Right to the point---question.
> Should-firearms-be-banned-to-the-public?
> 
> My answer : NO. White American honest citizen should all have the right to get GUNS
> *But in the case of *BLM and *muslims YES it should be banned for them. NoO firearms what so ever


Sadly, there are racists on here.

----------


## Big Dummy

> I am an illogical ignorant person.



Yes you are. Are you going to get the illegal guns yourself? Do you have a plan to get the guns that Obama and Holder sold to the straw-buyers in F&F? Or are you still talking shit that the LEO or military should do this job for you?

----------


## Network

Weapons should not be in the hands of kids recruited and hired to kill at the age of 18 by power hungry lunatics.

Aggregations of power such as the historical "states" have mass murdered millions of people. Yes, people serving these aggregates of endless stolen money and the levers of the media to spread their propaganda should not only be disarmed, but disbanded.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Yes you are.


What I said, "however, that doesn't mean I will start agreeing with you or that because I disagree I am an illogical ignorant person." 
Unfortunately, you are this way as well. You believe whoever disagrees with you is an illogical ignorant person. 



> Are you going to get the illegal guns yourself?



I personally don't want guns to be illegal. 



> Do you have a plan to get the guns that Obama and Holder sold to the straw-buyers in F&F?



Nope.



> Or are you still talking shit that the LEO or military should do this job for you?



Nope, I simply asked whether firearms should be banned or not.

----------


## MedicineBow

> Weapons should not be in the hands of kids recruited and hired to kill at the age of 18 by power hungry lunatics.
> 
> Aggregations of power such as the historical "states" have mass murdered millions of people. Yes, people serving these aggregates of endless stolen money and the levers of the media to spread their propaganda should not only be disarmed, but disbanded.


I'll read this again after I have a drink.  Perhaps then it will make sense.

----------

Kodiak (08-21-2016)

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Yes you are. Are you going to get the illegal guns yourself? Do you have a plan to get the guns that Obama and Holder sold to the straw-buyers in F&F? Or are you still talking shit that the LEO or military should do this job for you?


Even if I did want firearms banned to the public, that wouldn't make me an illogical ignorant person.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> I'll read this again after I have a drink.  Perhaps then it will make sense.


Do you get smarter after drinking then?

----------


## Kodiak

> I'll read this again after I have a drink.  Perhaps then it will make sense.


That goes for most of this thread.

----------


## Network

> I'll read this again after I have a drink.  Perhaps then it will make sense.


War kills the most people. No drink needed.

Globalists, people you keep voting for, think that a one world power and structure would alleviate all the ills of these divided nations, if they have any decent intentions whatsoever (they don't). 
Malcontents don't trust power in the hands of a few and think the problem is that the power is already in the hands of too few.  

But it's Sunday night and someone has to pay for Obamacare tomorrow.

----------

LFD (08-21-2016)

----------


## MedicineBow

I'm fairly certain after one drink and a  good nights sleep that post will still sound like the gibberish. 

Do you believe that alcohol will do that?  If so,  you may wish to do some research. 



> Do you get smarter after drinking then?

----------


## MedicineBow

> Nope, I simply asked whether firearms should be banned or not.


Easy enough,  NO.
 But, if you believe otherwise,  feel free to make an argument for banning guns.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> I'm fairly certain after one drink and a  good nights sleep that post will still sound like the gibberish. 
> 
> Do you believe that alcohol will do that?  If so,  you may wish to do some research.


Then your sadly ignorant since what he(or she) said makes perfect sense. If it may only make sense after a drink, I can only assume you get more logical after a drink.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> You don't need to believe in natural rights to create a constitution prohibiting these kind of things. 
> It simply doesn't matter to me anyways what the framers believed in. 
> I don't love and worship government power, you are committing a fallacy by thinking that rights are all good to the point of wherever they come from, that entity is worthy of worship.


First of all, do you know what Bills of Attainder ARE?

Second.  What a government of man gives, a government of men, different men, can take away.

If Natural Rights are not recognized, you are _de facto_ property of the government.  Theirs, to dispose of as they will.  Just as you're foolishly trying to disarm free men...once disarmed, the government may well take some or many of these former-citizens-now-serfs and starve them.  Or use them as cannon fodder.  Or test radioactive weapons on them.  WHATEVER IT CHOOSES - because government redacted their "rights" as you define them.

Moreover, such a society will do no better than Medieval feudal duchies in Europe did.  Not overly well.  Not likely to endure for any period.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> First of all, do you know what Bills of Attainder ARE?


"A *bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial."  Wikipedia
**
*


> Second. What a government of man gives, a government of men, different men, can take away.


If the state fails to protect.



> If Natural Rights are not recognized, you are _de facto property of the government._


You are always de facto property of the state if you are a citizen of one. 



> Theirs, to dispose of as they will. Just as you're foolishly trying to disarm free men...once disarmed, the government may well take some or many of these former-citizens-now-serfs and starve them. Or test radioactive weapons on them. WHATEVER IT CHOOSES - because government redacted their "rights" as you define them.


If the state enforces legal entitlements, this isn't supposed to happen, but your right on some of that, the state is largely a corrupt institution.



> Moreover, such a society will do no better than Medieval feudal duchies in Europe did. Not overly well. Not likely to endure for any period.


If it enforces no rights then yes it may be worse. *
*

----------


## Big Dummy

> Easy enough,  NO.
>  But, if you believe otherwise,  feel free to make an argument for banning guns.


 Then PoS says he wants guns banned from the public. So in pure demoncrap fashion, he talks out of both sides of his mouth. And to top it off He says self-defense for law abiding public is illogical. 

 Grow some balls PoS and don't make the armed police and military do your asinine plan of disarming the public. Go get them yourself.

----------


## Big Dummy

> "A *bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial."  Wikipedia
> *
> If the state fails to protect.
> 
> You are always de facto property of the state if you are a citizen of one. 
> 
> If the state enforces legal entitlements, this isn't supposed to happen, but your right on some of that, the state is largely a corrupt institution.
> 
> If it enforces no rights then yes it may be worse.


 You are delusional. It is confirmed now. The constitution is a foreign concept beyond your capabilities. Being a citizen in America makes you an owner/shareholder of the State.

----------


## JustPassinThru

He wants the State to protect the former-citizen subjects from the State.

That's asinine in it's vocalization.  In application it is LETHAL.

The Chinese and Soviet experience should be enough to dismiss this foolishness out of hand.  Unfortunately, this kid never learned that from his Marxist and Maoist professors and teachers.

----------

Big Dummy (08-21-2016)

----------


## nonsqtr

PoS is highly conflicted. (Politically speaking, of course).

"Illogical" is exactly the right word. Not only do the political models conflict, the tree of belief has two entirely distinct trunks!

I've found four instances already where PoS wants to make use of a state resource to argue that the state shouldn't exist. "Highly" illogical, I'd say.

Most of these foolish anarchists wouldn't last two seconds in the real world. Put 'em in a live firefight and they'll be screaming for mommy after the first six shots.

----------


## Rutabaga

> "God is dead" - Nietzsche
> 
> "Nietzsche is dead" - God




ahhh yes,,nietzsche,,the german philosopher, who found morals to be "restrictive" and died in his 40's after having gone mad from syphilis... :Thumbsup20:

----------


## Priest of Swag

> You are delusional. It is confirmed now.


Again, your saying that simply because you don't like what I say, making it meaningless.



> The constitution is a foreign concept beyond your capabilities.


It was written by other men, not gods.



> Being a citizen in America makes you an owner/shareholder of the State.


Yet, the state is above you, and it isn't voluntary.

----------


## Big Dummy

> Again, your saying that simply because you don't like what I say, making it meaningless.
> 
> It was written by other men, not gods.
> 
> Yet, the state is above you, and it isn't voluntary.



Do do you own a gun? 


How many illegal guns did you get off the streets today?

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Do do you own a gun?


Why does it matter anyways?  



> How many illegal guns did you get off the streets today?


None.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Then PoS says he wants guns banned from the public.


Never said that.



> So in pure demoncrap fashion, he talks out of both sides of his mouth.


You wish.



> And to top it off He says self-defense for law abiding public is illogical.


Never said that either. Quit putting words in my mouth.



> Grow some balls PoS and don't make the armed police and military do your asinine plan of disarming the public. Go get them yourself.


I don't plan on it.

----------


## hoytmonger

@Big Dummy seems to live up to his username... but I expect he realizes that... hence the username.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> He wants the State to protect the former-citizen subjects from the State.


I never said that.



> The Chinese and Soviet experience should be enough to dismiss this foolishness out of hand. Unfortunately, this kid never learned that from his Marxist and Maoist professors and teachers.


I never had Maoist or Marxist professors/teachers.

----------


## Big Dummy

> Never said that.
> 
> You wish.
> 
> Never said that either. Quit putting words in my mouth.
> 
> I don't plan on it.


Ban guns from the public you suggest. Take away the right to self defense by firearm. Afraid to do what you suggest be done yourself. Afraid to say wether you own a gun. 

Goodbye , done with you, troll. You won't even discuss your own OP.

----------


## Big Dummy

> @Big Dummy seems to live up to his username... but I expect he realizes that... hence the username.


 Oh you are so smart. Yes my handle fits. I would be banned if I said what I think of your Anarchists philosophy. Have fun with your reach around with PoS.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Ban guns from the public you suggest.


Nope, I exposed that lie earlier. 



> Take away the right to self defense by firearm.


I don't recall saying that either. 



> Afraid to do what you suggest be done yourself. Afraid to say wether you own a gun.


It doesn't matter whether I own a gun anyways. It doesn't say anything about my views on guns.



> Goodbye , done with you, troll. You won't even discuss your own OP.


Did you ask for it? As far as I know, you simply assume I believe in something. 
hoytmonger is right, you certainly lived up to your username.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> PoS is highly conflicted. (Politically speaking, of course).


Not at all. 



> I've found four instances already where PoS wants to make use of a state resource to argue that the state shouldn't exist. "Highly" illogical, I'd say.


That isn't "illogical".



> Most of these foolish anarchists wouldn't last two seconds in the real world. Put 'em in a live firefight and they'll be screaming for mommy after the first six shots.


First of all, I am not an anarchist, however, I see why you would think so. The anarchist philosophy certainly has more basis in reality than you think.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> Oh you are so smart.


Certainly more intelligent than you, your username shows you recognize that.



> I would be banned if I said what I think of your Anarchists philosophy.


You would be banned if you explained or advocated for what states have done to people. The state is based on violence, control, and institutional slavery. Sounds like you support it.

----------

hoytmonger (08-22-2016)

----------


## nonsqtr

> That isn't "illogical".


 :Smile: 

How about this: start with the concept that uniquely distinguishes the American constitution from every other constitution in the world. What do you suppose that is?




> First of all, I am not an anarchist, however, I see why you would think so. The anarchist philosophy certainly has more basis in reality than you think.


Sure, there's dumb-ass anarchists all over the place. Easy pickin's, when TSHTF. 

I'm an engineer, I deal in what's useful. What can I build with what I have on hand, and how much will it cost and how much of a pain in the ass will it be to maintain.

My ideal political system is self-enforcing.

Here, I have an idea - google on "self organizing systems". Read the wiki, and click the link where it says "associative memory".

Question for you: how can you control the development and ultimate character of a self organizing system? What are the "rules" that are actually being obeyed?

----------


## Priest of Swag

> How about this: start with the concept that uniquely distinguishes the American constitution from every other constitution in the world. What do you suppose that is?


Lets see, gun rights are unique and the system of government proposed.  



> Sure, there's dumb-ass anarchists all over the place. Easy pickin's, when TSHTF.


You call them "dumb-ass" because you simply disagree with them.



> I'm an engineer, I deal in what's useful. What can I build with what I have on hand, and how much will it cost and how much of a pain in the ass will it be to maintain.


Alright. 



> My ideal political system is self-enforcing.


Alright.



> Here, I have an idea - google on "self organizing systems". Read the wiki, and click the link where it says "associative memory".


What are you trying to get at with this anyways?



> Question for you: how can you control the development and ultimate character of a self organizing system?


Rulers. 



> What are the "rules" that are actually being obeyed?


Whatever rules people are following at the moment.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Lets see, gun rights are unique and the system of government proposed.  
> 
> You call them "dumb-ass" because you simply disagree with them.
> 
> Alright. 
> 
> Alright.
> 
> What are you trying to get at with this anyways?
> ...


You are resisting the light bulb moment.

You're also missing the point. Quite entirely.

Do the work. Learn why the rules in a self-organizing system are interesting.

The question is not about "people". There is "a" certain distinguishing characteristic about those rules, that make the entire system actually work. What is it?

(Hint: the question is about scale, which means it's about scope.... and I'll give you another hint too: the exact same thing happens in the immune system and in the brain, both of which are examples of "self organizing systems")

----------


## Dan40

> Lets see, gun rights are unique and the system of government proposed.  
> 
> You call them "dumb-ass" because you simply disagree with them.
> 
> Alright. 
> 
> Alright.
> 
> What are you trying to get at with this anyways?
> ...


 *Amendment II*_A  well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free  state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be  infringed.
_




READ the words.

The 2nd Amendment does NOT grant the right to bear arms.

It restricts the government from banning the people's right to bear arms.

*"shall not be  infringed."*

----------

Big Dummy (08-23-2016),teeceetx (08-23-2016)

----------


## tiny1

> Certainly more intelligent than you, your username shows you recognize that.
> 
> You would be banned if you explained or advocated for what states have done to people. The state is based on violence, control, and institutional slavery. Sounds like you support it.


OK, so your position is that you want to abolish the Gooberment.  So, if there is no gooberment, who is gonna protect you from people like.........me?  Anarchists always think people will just go quietly about their business, and all will live like good little Communists, all working together for the Common Good.  Problem is, many people will act if there is no gooberment to stop them.
And, if you think you can protect yourself, remember, someone has a stronger army that you cannot repel.
Sure, you can always get guns, and people to help you, but the element of surprise is usually with the aggressor, and the "surprised" usually lose.
Yes, I support A gooberment, just not like the one we have now.  Smaller, limited Gooberment, who respects the Natural God Given rights we should be enjoying, where it pays to live and let live.  In Anarchy, it pays to have an army.  It pays to mistreat and abuse people.  Crime definitely pays, when there is no one to stop it.

----------

Big Dummy (08-23-2016),Knightkore (08-23-2016)

----------


## Dan40

> OK, so your position is that you want to abolish the Gooberment.  So, if there is no gooberment, who is gonna protect you from people like.........me?  Anarchists always think people will just go quietly about their business, and all will live like good little Communists, all working together for the Common Good.  Problem is, many people will act if there is no gooberment to stop them.
> And, if you think you can protect yourself, remember, someone has a stronger army that you cannot repel.
> Sure, you can always get guns, and people to help you, but the element of surprise is usually with the aggressor, and the "surprised" usually lose.
> Yes, I support A gooberment, just not like the one we have now.  Smaller, limited Gooberment, who respects the Natural God Given rights we should be enjoying, where it pays to live and let live.  In Anarchy, it pays to have an army.  It pays to mistreat and abuse people.  Crime definitely pays, when there is no one to stop it.



Anarchists are almost as smart as dirt.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> OK, so your position is that you want to abolish the Gooberment.  So, if there is no gooberment, who is gonna protect you from people like.........me?  
> 
> *Anarchists always think people will just go quietly about their business, and all will live like good little Communists, all working together for the Common Good.  Problem is, many people will act if there is no gooberment to stop them.*
> 
> And, if you think you can protect yourself, remember, someone has a stronger army that you cannot repel.
> Sure, you can always get guns, and people to help you, but the element of surprise is usually with the aggressor, and the "surprised" usually lose.
> Yes, I support A gooberment, just not like the one we have now.  Smaller, limited Gooberment, who respects the Natural God Given rights we should be enjoying, where it pays to live and let live.  In Anarchy, it pays to have an army.  It pays to mistreat and abuse people.  Crime definitely pays, when there is no one to stop it.


Anarchists do not THINK.  Faced with a VOLUME of evidence, a TOTALITY of proof, they deny it.  They have no explanation why places where government collapses immediately become hellholes and meat-grinders.  They deny the obvious linkage between reduced policing in cities and immediate rise in serious crime and violent crime.

They don't think.  Many of them are habitual drug users - that's part of the draw and the fantasy...dood!  Get ridda the cops, an' we can all smoke DOPE!  Life gonna be BEAUTIFUL, dood!

They don't think; many of them have drug-related impairments in reasoning; and they have their wonderful fantasy which they think they can wish into being.  And behind-the-scenes Communists and totalitarians, such as Soros, are more than happy to fund their fantasies and their violent rallies.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> *Amendment II*
> 
> _A  well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free  state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be  infringed.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> READ the words.
> ...


Same thing. Rights are what are legally entitled to us. So yes, it is granting us this right, since that is what rights are.

----------


## Dan40

> Same thing. Rights are what are legally entitled to us. So yes, it is granting us this right, since that is what rights are.


Try a remedial reading class.  At present, you do not comprehend the written word.

NO PART of the Constitution grants any rights.  It only restricts the governments powers to infringe on our rights as human beings.

Intelligent people grasp that, idiots do not.

In anarchy, people HAVE their rights as human beings.  They HAVE them and since there is no govt in anarchy, the peoples rights cannot have been granted since no granting agency COULD exist in anarchy.  But you probably don't understand that either.

And in anarchy there is NO protection of human rights. internal or external.  In anarchy, MIGHT will always be RIGHT.

And MIGHT will always prevail.

----------


## JustPassinThru

People with an agenda are not interested in learning or discussing.

They're interested in holding forth.  They're interested in crafting their spin; constructing their narrative.

That's what this individual is doing.

----------


## Dan40

> People with an agenda are not interested in learning or discussing.
> 
> They're interested in holding forth.  They're interested in crafting their spin; constructing their narrative.
> 
> That's what this individual is doing.


Congenital liars enjoy their lying.  Ignoring these ignorants is best.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> OK, so your position is that you want to abolish the Gooberment.


Not necessarily.



> So, if there is no gooberment, who is gonna protect you from people like.........me?


Myself and others. What do you think protects you right now?



> Anarchists always think people will just go quietly about their business, and all will live like good little Communists, all working together for the Common Good. Problem is, many people will act if there is no gooberment to stop them.


What prevents others from beating others up? The state doesn't. 



> And, if you think you can protect yourself, remember, someone has a stronger army that you cannot repel.


Assuming that, then it would be like war(foreign invasion). Considering that people all around would have weapons for protection(and their own army), it wouldn't be an easy task for any army. You could always assume it to be that way, even with a state. What if a military overpowers a state? 



> Sure, you can always get guns, and people to help you, but the element of surprise is usually with the aggressor, and the "surprised" usually lose.


Guess what? The state uses weapons too, and you support it, apparently in your view, it can only work if it is a state.  



> Yes, I support A gooberment, just not like the one we have now. Smaller, limited Gooberment, who respects the Natural God Given rights we should be enjoying, where it pays to live and let live.


That is your belief and I respect that, however, I don't necessarily agree with it. 



> In Anarchy, it pays to have an army. It pays to mistreat and abuse people. Crime definitely pays, when there is no one to stop it.


Crime doesn't exist in anarchy. The people and community is there to stop it from harming them. Your assuming that people will go berserk without an institution of force and control. However, this isn't what stops people from doing these things in the first place. 
You really need to sharpen your understanding of society altogether, anarchists have got it, conservatives and liberals today have failed to understand.

----------


## Priest of Swag

> NO PART of the Constitution grants any rights.  It only restricts the governments powers to infringe on our rights as human beings.


That is a right. Legally entitling us to it. Yes, the constitution grants us this, without it we wouldn't have those rights. 



> In anarchy, people HAVE their rights as human beings. They HAVE them and since there is no govt in anarchy, the peoples rights cannot have been granted since no granting agency COULD exist in anarchy. But you probably don't understand that either.


That is the assumption of natural rights(moral), which I don't believe in. In anarchy, there is no rights.

----------


## Dan40

> That is a right. Legally entitling us to it. Yes, the constitution grants us this, without it we wouldn't have those rights. 
> 
> That is the assumption of natural rights(moral), which I don't believe in. In anarchy, there is no rights.



It is good that we have identified your problem.  You cannot read.

----------

nonsqtr (08-24-2016)

----------


## Priest of Swag

> It is good that we have identified your problem.  You cannot read.


Your committing a fallacy by saying that because the constitution was worded a certain way, it must be that way. A constitution is a set of established principles over what a state should be governed. It is a legal document. If the framers wanted the principles to be on their views on natural rights, then they can establish those principles in the constitution. These principles are still granted and legally protected. The constitution says a right must not be infringed, you believe that since it says that, it is not granting the right. The framers believed in natural rights, but whether they exist or not, the constitution is granting us a legal right. The difference just turns out to be that the framers believed these are natural rights that already existed. These rights turn out to be negative rights, so granting them would be legally entitling people to something(like free speech or property) without state control. 
"The legal philosophy known as Declarationism seeks to incorporate the natural rights philosophy of the United States Declaration of Independence into the body of American case law on a level with the United States Constitution, since the unanimously agreed upon Doctrines of the Declaration of Independence is the foundational authority upon which the People and the Continental Congress of the 13 British Colonies of America based their power to legitimately separate from England and establish its own government (i.e. the Constitution of the United States)."
More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

----------


## teeceetx

> *Amendment II*
> 
> _A  well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free  state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be  infringed.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> READ the words.
> ...



Thank you for your post.  EVERYONE should remember the distinction made in the Second Amendment.

*The 2nd Amendment does NOT grant the right to bear arms.  It restricts the government from banning the people's right to bear arms.*

----------

FirstGenCanadian (08-23-2016)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

31 pages and PoS is still being bitch slapped. 

How does that feel?


What will be the next trolling question?

----------


## Dan40

> 31 pages and PoS is still being bitch slapped. 
> 
> How does that feel?
> 
> 
> What will be the next trolling question?


Fools are fools and must enjoy being fools.  And that is good because they will be fools all their useless lives.

And of course, they are so desperate for attention they troll the internet to garner a bit of attention.

Pitiful really.  

Suicide would serve them better.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Not necessarily.
> 
> Myself and others. What do you think protects you right now?
> 
> What prevents others from beating others up? The state doesn't. 
> 
> Assuming that, then it would be like war(foreign invasion). Considering that people all around would have weapons for protection(and their own army), it wouldn't be an easy task for any army. You could always assume it to be that way, even with a state. What if a military overpowers a state? 
> 
> Guess what? The state uses weapons too, and you support it, apparently in your view, it can only work if it is a state.  
> ...

----------

teeceetx (09-02-2016)

----------


## nonsqtr

> It is good that we have identified your problem.  You cannot read.


lol - maybe we're dealing with dyslexia or synesthesia or some other unusual condition, who knows.

("Unusual" being the operative word in that sentence, probably).  :Wink: 

So wow, now we're into "heavily armed anarchists", who are going to band together to defend the little guy.

I have two salient observations:

1. whenever a bunch of people band together, that's a political structure.
2. all such structures tend naturally towards a leadership hierarchy.

Number two is mostly because leadership is a pain in the ass. Are you familiar with the "symposia" of the Greeks? Someone had to run those things, and that person was called the "symposiarch", and no one wanted the job, so they'd basically rotate through the membership and everyone had to take their turn. Such a thing is still a leadership hierarchy. In Switzerland they have 7 presidents and they rotate, everyone has to take the job for one year.

PoS, the words "shall not infringe" by definition stipulate that the Rights are coming from somewhere else - NOT the government that's being constrained to uphold them!

Reading comprehension is fundamental. Really, it is.

----------

