Gun control with brains

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Unless you think the Founding Fathers were prophets, then the documents they gave you do not come from God.
Still, the rights they mention come from God. It's not the documents that give us certain rights, as you imply, but they were there since Adam and Eve.

It also means one can resist any government that restricts certain rights, regardless of laws or founding documents.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Still, the rights they mention come from God. It's not the documents that give us certain rights, as you imply, but they were there since Adam and Eve.

It also means one can resist any government that restricts certain rights, regardless of laws or founding documents.

If you're a US citizen, consider yourself blessed that our Founding Fathers gave us a legal means to resist tyranny (the 2nd Amendment).
 

This Charming Manc

Well-known member
Seeing as your dim, dishonest or both, I will answer the question I asked.

Amendment means change or revision

So there have been changes to this thing you seem to be treating as a divine proclamation.

This means that the constitution is not immutable, unchangeable or divinely inspired.

However you knew that you were just be deceitful again.

In the case of the 2nd Amendment: To make things perfectly clear that American citizens have a God-given right to keep and bear arms.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
It will never happen. Look how loudly they cry, scream, and kick their feet when we suggest less-intrusive ideas. I can only imagine the temper tantrum they would throw if we suggested to reduce supply.

Violence in the streets.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Seeing as your dim, dishonest or both, I will answer the question I asked.

Amendment means change or revision

So there have been changes to this thing you seem to be treating as a divine proclamation.

This means that the constitution is not immutable, unchangeable or divinely inspired.

However you knew that you were just be deceitful again.

Being that the 2nd Amendment was adopted 2 years after the Constitution was put into force, I'll stick with my definition:

The Founding Fathers wanted to make it perfectly clear that American citizens have the God-given right to keep and bear arms.

Regarding the Divine Proclamation:

It was in the document that Thomas Jefferson wrote (and was signed by the 56 delegates to the Continental Congress) telling your King where he could put his taxation without representation.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
You're equating claw hammers with guns.

I'm equating guns with tools that are also used to kill people. A gun is a tool for hunting that can be used to commit murder. A claw hammer is a tool for building that can be used to commit murder. A knife is a tool for cutting that can be used to commit murder. Shovels have been used to kill people.

That's asinine and idiotic on its face.

No, it's not. You're being obtuse and obnoxious.

Unless you think we equip Marines with hammers.

I know we equip the Marines with hammers, and knives. They also get pointed shovels, called entrenching tools, that in the past were notoriously used in brutal hand-to-hand combat, such as during the battle of Stalingrad.

The problem isn't guns, knives, hammers or shovels; therefore, only giving psychological tests to people who want to buy guns needlessly discriminates against people who are exercising their constitutional right to bear arms.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
I'm equating guns with tools that are also used to kill people.

Which is ridiculous and inane. Yeah, I think we got that part.

I know we equip the Marines with hammers, and knives. They also get pointed shovels, called entrenching tools, that in the past were notoriously used in brutal hand-to-hand combat, such as during the battle of Stalingrad.

At first glance this seems to imply the USMC showed up at Stalingrad. Just sayin'.:noid:

The Marines are not given such tools for the express intent of killing anyone with them. They're trained to be marksmen because rifles just so happen to be exceptionally good at killing people. Stop playing stupid, elo. It's not a good look.
 

PureX

Well-known member
Still, the rights they mention come from God. It's not the documents that give us certain rights, as you imply, but they were there since Adam and Eve.

It also means one can resist any government that restricts certain rights, regardless of laws or founding documents.
I believe you are right on both counts. And the Declaration of Independence says so, specifically. The founders did believe that all human beings had "inalienable rights" endowed to them by their "Creator". And although we can argue the exact language and meaning, it seems pretty clear to me that they were talking about existential rights: rights that we all have by the fact of our existing. Such as the right to live, the right to live freely, and the right to seek our own happiness.

The founders also stated, in that same paragraph, that all human beings have the right to "abolish" their own governments if those governments are not respecting of these unalienable human rights. Again, we can dispute at what point such a thing should occur, and to what degree it becomes warranted, but their position on this was clear enough.

from the Declaration of Independence"

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.​

And contained in those two paragraphs is the single greatest political philosophy yet attained by mankind. So great is it that humanity has not yet learned how to live up to it.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
The Marines are not given such tools for the express intent of killing anyone with them.

People are not sold guns for the express intent of murdering people. The point is that people can and do use other tools besides guns to commit murder. It's not about the guns at all.

They're trained to be marksmen because rifles just so happen to be exceptionally good at killing people.

Irrelevant to my point. Also, they mount knives on the end of M-16s. Furthermore, I doubt even one infantryman willing to kill hasn't considered the idea of using his entrenching tool as a weapon during combat; modern special forces are trained to fight with entrenching tools.
 

chair

Well-known member
I believe you are right on both counts. And the Declaration of Independence says so, specifically. The founders did believe that all human beings had "inalienable rights" endowed to them by their "Creator". And although we can argue the exact language and meaning, it seems pretty clear to me that they were talking about existential rights: rights that we all have by the fact of our existing. Such as the right to live, the live freely, and to seek our own happiness.

The founders also stated, in that same paragraph, that all human beings have the right to "abolish" their own governments if those governments are not respecting of these unalienable human rights. Again, we can dispute at what point such a thing should occur, and to what degree it becomes warranted, but their position on this was clear enough.

from the Declaration of Independence"

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.​

If the Declaration of independence says that " they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", it is very nice, but that still doesn't make anything "God-given", unless the Founders were prophets.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
People are not sold guns for the express intent of murdering people. The point is that people can and do use other tools besides guns to commit murder. It's not about the guns at all.

Yeah, it is. What you're doing is making an idiotic argument:

a) guns can kill people
b) lots of things can kill people; so,
c) don't do anything about guns, despite the fact that
d) they're designed to kill

Also, they mount knives on the end of M-16s.

Don't know much about infantry, do ya?:think:

Furthermore, I doubt even one infantryman willing to kill hasn't considered the idea of using his entrenching tool as a weapon during combat.

As opposed to the other kind?:rotfl:
 

Quetzal

New member
People are not sold guns for the express intent of murdering people. The point is that people can and do use other tools besides guns to commit murder.
Right, but firearms are at the top. There is no contest, at all. No one can debate that statistic. So, to compare the #1 killing instrument in the world to a hammer/shovel/knife is not even close to a fair comparison.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
Yeah, it is. What you're doing is making an idiotic argument:

a) guns can kill people
b) lots of things can kill people; so,
c) don't do anything about guns, despite the fact that
d) they're designed to kill

No, that's not my argument. I never said "don't do anything about guns." I'm arguing against discriminating against gun owners.

Why don't you want psychological testing for knife ownership? They are commonly used to commit murder. Your argument appears to be:

a) knives can kill people
b) lots of things can kill people; so,
c) don't do anything about knives, despite the fact that
d) they're designed to kill



Don't know much about infantry, do ya?:think:

I'm a combat veteran. You've never heard of a bayonet?


As opposed to the other kind?:rotfl:

There have been people drafted that didn't want to fight or kill. One I know of won the Congressional Medal of Honor.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
I'm arguing against discriminating against gun owners.

As a fellow gun owner I don't think we've got much left by way of the benefit of the doubt these days. And certainly zero to complain about.

Your argument appears to be:

...that your comprehensive skills are sharp as a marble.

I'm hopping over to CM's thread, bring your sidewalk chalk if you like.
 
Top