Quote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:02:05 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 01:53:55 PMRights are not something that can be amended. We are entitled by them by our own existence.you see no danger or folly in allowing men who lived two and a half centuries ago tell you what your basic rights areThey did pretty well if you ask me. They didn't cover everything, but I'm glad what they did cover is law.
Quote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 01:53:55 PMRights are not something that can be amended. We are entitled by them by our own existence.you see no danger or folly in allowing men who lived two and a half centuries ago tell you what your basic rights are
Rights are not something that can be amended. We are entitled by them by our own existence.
Quote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 02:07:49 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:02:05 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 01:53:55 PMRights are not something that can be amended. We are entitled by them by our own existence.you see no danger or folly in allowing men who lived two and a half centuries ago tell you what your basic rights areThey did pretty well if you ask me. They didn't cover everything, but I'm glad what they did cover is law.i agree, that's why amendment 2 is the only one i have a serious problem withall in all, the constitution is pretty awesome, but i'm not gonna sit here and pretend it's the word of god or anything, especially when it needed to be fixed up 27 times over the course of 200 years
Quote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:13:03 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 02:07:49 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:02:05 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 01:53:55 PMRights are not something that can be amended. We are entitled by them by our own existence.you see no danger or folly in allowing men who lived two and a half centuries ago tell you what your basic rights areThey did pretty well if you ask me. They didn't cover everything, but I'm glad what they did cover is law.i agree, that's why amendment 2 is the only one i have a serious problem withall in all, the constitution is pretty awesome, but i'm not gonna sit here and pretend it's the word of god or anything, especially when it needed to be fixed up 27 times over the course of 200 yearsCool, but I think if one of the amendments in the Bill Of Rights is taken away, it reflects that the government does not view them as rights anymore and believes they are privileges instead. I for one like the sound of "right to free speech" as opposed to "privilege of speech". The removal of one invalidates the rest
Quote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 02:32:35 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:13:03 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 02:07:49 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:02:05 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 01:53:55 PMRights are not something that can be amended. We are entitled by them by our own existence.you see no danger or folly in allowing men who lived two and a half centuries ago tell you what your basic rights areThey did pretty well if you ask me. They didn't cover everything, but I'm glad what they did cover is law.i agree, that's why amendment 2 is the only one i have a serious problem withall in all, the constitution is pretty awesome, but i'm not gonna sit here and pretend it's the word of god or anything, especially when it needed to be fixed up 27 times over the course of 200 yearsCool, but I think if one of the amendments in the Bill Of Rights is taken away, it reflects that the government does not view them as rights anymore and believes they are privileges instead. I for one like the sound of "right to free speech" as opposed to "privilege of speech". The removal of one invalidates the resti don't really see the logic therefree speech (which i do believe is a basic human right) has nothing to do with the right to bear armsjust because they were written on the same bill doesn't mean they're inextricably intertwined, unless you could explain how
Quote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:35:44 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 02:32:35 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:13:03 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 02:07:49 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:02:05 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 01:53:55 PMRights are not something that can be amended. We are entitled by them by our own existence.you see no danger or folly in allowing men who lived two and a half centuries ago tell you what your basic rights areThey did pretty well if you ask me. They didn't cover everything, but I'm glad what they did cover is law.i agree, that's why amendment 2 is the only one i have a serious problem withall in all, the constitution is pretty awesome, but i'm not gonna sit here and pretend it's the word of god or anything, especially when it needed to be fixed up 27 times over the course of 200 yearsCool, but I think if one of the amendments in the Bill Of Rights is taken away, it reflects that the government does not view them as rights anymore and believes they are privileges instead. I for one like the sound of "right to free speech" as opposed to "privilege of speech". The removal of one invalidates the resti don't really see the logic therefree speech (which i do believe is a basic human right) has nothing to do with the right to bear armsjust because they were written on the same bill doesn't mean they're inextricably intertwined, unless you could explain howBill of Rights. Not Bill of Privileges
Quote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:13:03 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 02:07:49 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:02:05 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 01:53:55 PMRights are not something that can be amended. We are entitled by them by our own existence.you see no danger or folly in allowing men who lived two and a half centuries ago tell you what your basic rights areThey did pretty well if you ask me. They didn't cover everything, but I'm glad what they did cover is law.i agree, that's why amendment 2 is the only one i have a serious problem withall in all, the constitution is pretty awesome, but i'm not gonna sit here and pretend it's the word of god or anything, especially when it needed to be fixed up 27 times over the course of 200 yearsI don't follow this reasoning either. It's easy to say that the bill of rights just affirms the existence of these fundamental and natural rights (if there even is such a thing, but that's a whole other debate), but I've never seen anything to really substantiate this. The US Constitution and bill of rights are not unique. They were not really the first, they're not the ones that followed the most debate and they're definitely not the most comprehensive or detailed. Many of the rights that we consider basic right now (such as privacy) are not even part of it and have retroactively been retconned to be interpreted as part of another clause. There's dozens of constitutions and treaties on human rights out there and many of them have been more influential or provide protections that the American one does not, yet why is this one somehow correct despite not a single other constitution in the world mentioning the right to firearms "without infringement"? Seems like a very big leap to make.
Quote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 02:43:31 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:35:44 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 02:32:35 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:13:03 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 02:07:49 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:02:05 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 01:53:55 PMRights are not something that can be amended. We are entitled by them by our own existence.you see no danger or folly in allowing men who lived two and a half centuries ago tell you what your basic rights areThey did pretty well if you ask me. They didn't cover everything, but I'm glad what they did cover is law.i agree, that's why amendment 2 is the only one i have a serious problem withall in all, the constitution is pretty awesome, but i'm not gonna sit here and pretend it's the word of god or anything, especially when it needed to be fixed up 27 times over the course of 200 yearsCool, but I think if one of the amendments in the Bill Of Rights is taken away, it reflects that the government does not view them as rights anymore and believes they are privileges instead. I for one like the sound of "right to free speech" as opposed to "privilege of speech". The removal of one invalidates the resti don't really see the logic therefree speech (which i do believe is a basic human right) has nothing to do with the right to bear armsjust because they were written on the same bill doesn't mean they're inextricably intertwined, unless you could explain howBill of Rights. Not Bill of Privilegesbill of nine rights and one privilege
The main issue with shootings is that American society and culture is an absolute fucking joke. If the government would get rid of some useless bureaus to make room for an increased mental health care budget we could probably solve the mass shooting issue without even needing gun control. We need more love. Division is bad. We need an complete American mindset overhaul.
Quote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 02:46:45 PMQuote from: Flee on March 01, 2018, 02:36:05 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:13:03 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 02:07:49 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:02:05 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 01:53:55 PMRights are not something that can be amended. We are entitled by them by our own existence.you see no danger or folly in allowing men who lived two and a half centuries ago tell you what your basic rights areThey did pretty well if you ask me. They didn't cover everything, but I'm glad what they did cover is law.i agree, that's why amendment 2 is the only one i have a serious problem withall in all, the constitution is pretty awesome, but i'm not gonna sit here and pretend it's the word of god or anything, especially when it needed to be fixed up 27 times over the course of 200 yearsI don't follow this reasoning either. It's easy to say that the bill of rights just affirms the existence of these fundamental and natural rights (if there even is such a thing, but that's a whole other debate), but I've never seen anything to really substantiate this. The US Constitution and bill of rights are not unique. They were not really the first, they're not the ones that followed the most debate and they're definitely not the most comprehensive or detailed. Many of the rights that we consider basic right now (such as privacy) are not even part of it and have retroactively been retconned to be interpreted as part of another clause. There's dozens of constitutions and treaties on human rights out there and many of them have been more influential or provide protections that the American one does not, yet why is this one somehow correct despite not a single other constitution in the world mentioning the right to firearms "without infringement"? Seems like a very big leap to make.If we give up on the concept of basic human rights then I think the world will start heading down the shitter a whole lot quicker. Guns aren't going anywhere in the U.S. If they do, we're fucked. If they don't, we'll still be fucked, but It'll take a little while longer. Nations have a lifespan. Once the guns are gone, then the real fuckery begins.I'm really confused how you got that from my post. I don't think we should give up on the concept of basic human rights. I'm a strong supporter of human rights and most of my job revolves around protecting them. My point is just that gun ownership isn't or shouldn't be one, and that there's a lot of human rights instruments out there that are more comprehensive, influential and in my opinion better than the US Bill of Rights, yet don't include firearm ownership. You keep making a semi slippery slope case that this somehow results in all rights being taken away yet offer no evidence or anything to substantiate it.Much of what you say also kind of comes across as empty. You ignored my previous post and just present these very general and vague talking points almost. You frame this as some black/white situation where "evil is real" and that everything good will perish to bad guys if we don't take action, yet guns aren't just misused by "evil" people who spent their days thinking about breaking all possible laws and harming people. Guns are misused by your "law abiding gun owner" who accidentally shoots someone. The good family man down the street who gets drunk and shoots his wife in an argument. The "good guy with a gun" who gets into a traffic rage incident at a drive-tru and pulls his gun on someone. These people aren't pure evil, and you're really misrepresenting the situation in a naive way.I'm also very interested in any evidence backing up that guns are somehow holding society together a bit longer and that we're all fucked without them.
Quote from: Flee on March 01, 2018, 02:36:05 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:13:03 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 02:07:49 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:02:05 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 01:53:55 PMRights are not something that can be amended. We are entitled by them by our own existence.you see no danger or folly in allowing men who lived two and a half centuries ago tell you what your basic rights areThey did pretty well if you ask me. They didn't cover everything, but I'm glad what they did cover is law.i agree, that's why amendment 2 is the only one i have a serious problem withall in all, the constitution is pretty awesome, but i'm not gonna sit here and pretend it's the word of god or anything, especially when it needed to be fixed up 27 times over the course of 200 yearsI don't follow this reasoning either. It's easy to say that the bill of rights just affirms the existence of these fundamental and natural rights (if there even is such a thing, but that's a whole other debate), but I've never seen anything to really substantiate this. The US Constitution and bill of rights are not unique. They were not really the first, they're not the ones that followed the most debate and they're definitely not the most comprehensive or detailed. Many of the rights that we consider basic right now (such as privacy) are not even part of it and have retroactively been retconned to be interpreted as part of another clause. There's dozens of constitutions and treaties on human rights out there and many of them have been more influential or provide protections that the American one does not, yet why is this one somehow correct despite not a single other constitution in the world mentioning the right to firearms "without infringement"? Seems like a very big leap to make.If we give up on the concept of basic human rights then I think the world will start heading down the shitter a whole lot quicker. Guns aren't going anywhere in the U.S. If they do, we're fucked. If they don't, we'll still be fucked, but It'll take a little while longer. Nations have a lifespan. Once the guns are gone, then the real fuckery begins.
Quote from: Flee on March 01, 2018, 03:00:22 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 02:46:45 PMQuote from: Flee on March 01, 2018, 02:36:05 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:13:03 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 02:07:49 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 01, 2018, 02:02:05 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 01:53:55 PMRights are not something that can be amended. We are entitled by them by our own existence.you see no danger or folly in allowing men who lived two and a half centuries ago tell you what your basic rights areThey did pretty well if you ask me. They didn't cover everything, but I'm glad what they did cover is law.i agree, that's why amendment 2 is the only one i have a serious problem withall in all, the constitution is pretty awesome, but i'm not gonna sit here and pretend it's the word of god or anything, especially when it needed to be fixed up 27 times over the course of 200 yearsI don't follow this reasoning either. It's easy to say that the bill of rights just affirms the existence of these fundamental and natural rights (if there even is such a thing, but that's a whole other debate), but I've never seen anything to really substantiate this. The US Constitution and bill of rights are not unique. They were not really the first, they're not the ones that followed the most debate and they're definitely not the most comprehensive or detailed. Many of the rights that we consider basic right now (such as privacy) are not even part of it and have retroactively been retconned to be interpreted as part of another clause. There's dozens of constitutions and treaties on human rights out there and many of them have been more influential or provide protections that the American one does not, yet why is this one somehow correct despite not a single other constitution in the world mentioning the right to firearms "without infringement"? Seems like a very big leap to make.If we give up on the concept of basic human rights then I think the world will start heading down the shitter a whole lot quicker. Guns aren't going anywhere in the U.S. If they do, we're fucked. If they don't, we'll still be fucked, but It'll take a little while longer. Nations have a lifespan. Once the guns are gone, then the real fuckery begins.I'm really confused how you got that from my post. I don't think we should give up on the concept of basic human rights. I'm a strong supporter of human rights and most of my job revolves around protecting them. My point is just that gun ownership isn't or shouldn't be one, and that there's a lot of human rights instruments out there that are more comprehensive, influential and in my opinion better than the US Bill of Rights, yet don't include firearm ownership. You keep making a semi slippery slope case that this somehow results in all rights being taken away yet offer no evidence or anything to substantiate it.Much of what you say also kind of comes across as empty. You ignored my previous post and just present these very general and vague talking points almost. You frame this as some black/white situation where "evil is real" and that everything good will perish to bad guys if we don't take action, yet guns aren't just misused by "evil" people who spent their days thinking about breaking all possible laws and harming people. Guns are misused by your "law abiding gun owner" who accidentally shoots someone. The good family man down the street who gets drunk and shoots his wife in an argument. The "good guy with a gun" who gets into a traffic rage incident at a drive-tru and pulls his gun on someone. These people aren't pure evil, and you're really misrepresenting the situation in a naive way.I'm also very interested in any evidence backing up that guns are somehow holding society together a bit longer and that we're all fucked without them.Sorry. I've been getting off-topic. I just think that everything is going to fall apart eventually and governments all eventually turn against their citizenry because greed and power eventually become their main priorities. I think "Evil is real" pretty much sums everything up for me. Where power and man coexist, evil will be there also. I have no faith in man. The world is a dangerous place and I want guns to defend myself and I believe everyone has the right to do the same. My opinion isn't going to be changed by any discussion here. Sorry if I suck at discussing things. I just lose interest once I realize no one's opinions are going to change.
Quote from: Iberian Husky on March 01, 2018, 02:50:08 PMThe main issue with shootings is that American mental health care is an absolute fucking joke. If the government would get rid of some useless bureaus to make room for an increased mental health care budget we could probably solve the mass shooting issue without even needing gun control.But mass shootings only account for a tiny portion of all US gun deaths and there's a lot of research arguing that "mental health(care)" is a very poor scapegoat when it comes to "normal" gun violence.
The main issue with shootings is that American mental health care is an absolute fucking joke. If the government would get rid of some useless bureaus to make room for an increased mental health care budget we could probably solve the mass shooting issue without even needing gun control.
That isn’t the case now. Now, as Verb said, gun ownership is a privilege.
Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on March 01, 2018, 03:20:20 PM That isn’t the case now. Now, as Verb said, gun ownership is a privilege.Not according to the law it's not.
Quote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 03:22:59 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on March 01, 2018, 03:20:20 PM That isn’t the case now. Now, as Verb said, gun ownership is a privilege.Not according to the law it's not.Can your personal 2A rights be taken away? Commit a felony. Be dishonorably discharged from the military. Illegally transport a firearm across state lines. A right is inalienable. If there are circumstances that can lead to its loss? It is a privilege.
Quote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 03:22:59 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on March 01, 2018, 03:20:20 PM That isn’t the case now. Now, as Verb said, gun ownership is a privilege.Not according to the law it's not.The law is not the word of god
Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on March 01, 2018, 03:29:53 PMQuote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 03:22:59 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on March 01, 2018, 03:20:20 PM That isn’t the case now. Now, as Verb said, gun ownership is a privilege.Not according to the law it's not.Can your personal 2A rights be taken away? Commit a felony. Be dishonorably discharged from the military. Illegally transport a firearm across state lines. A right is inalienable. If there are circumstances that can lead to its loss? It is a privilege.Sometimes I think I'd be better off as a caveman.
Quote from: Chakas on March 01, 2018, 03:08:09 PMMy opinion isn't going to be changed by any discussion here. Sorry if I suck at discussing things. I just lose interest once I realize no one's opinions are going to change.I don't think you suck at discussing things. And for what it's worth, I'm very willing to change my opinion provided that the arguments and evidence are strong enough.
My opinion isn't going to be changed by any discussion here. Sorry if I suck at discussing things. I just lose interest once I realize no one's opinions are going to change.
Is the right to arm oneself a basic human right?
Poll