Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) I have one thing to say about guns and a wise man said it too, lets see if you remember whom that wise man was? "Those that live by the sword die by the sword." Of course i see none of you are saying well lets start shooting people with the gun i own and that it is only there just in case, but there are other ways you can defend yourself outside of war that don't include a gun. In my belief guns are a soldiers rite in war but definitely not a human rite or a god given rite for every man or woman whom want's one. Where not all soldiers nor are we all at war church militant or not, paleeez. :( Of course though i except the u.s constitutions rite that every citizen has the rite to bear arms, but it doesn't say you have to, and it should be locked up in the cuboard or shed or loft or addict or storm shelter till a time come that someone tries to invade or you get a dictator president, that is what tha freakin amendment is for, i even know that and i'm an australian. SHEESHKEBAB. Edited April 10, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 He who lives by the sword dies by he who lives by the gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) Just give the criminal your wallet for gods sake and don't shoot the poor bastard. Edited April 10, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 He who lives by the sword dies by he who lives by the gun. He who lives by the gun gets a broken hand with a tarzan ninja grip, and disarmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) Back in the day when punishment was just we used to cut the trigger fingers off both hands of GUN HOES! :P Edited April 10, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 If it makes you feel better, I live in America and I still find it fundamentally bizarre. :P You always told me I was British at heart, though. Join the empire luke, star wars was wrong. :P Or at least you can be an undercover commonwealth cadet, it isn't treason it is democracy. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazeingstar Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Speaking as a Brit, I find the concept that gun ownership is a "right" of any kind to be fundamentally bizarre. You do realize that there's some irony in a Brit saying they think gun ownership of an American is bizarre, right? ...considering it was armed citizens who made sure that Americans aren't Brits :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) You do realize that there's some irony in a Brit saying they think gun ownership of an American is bizarre, right? ...considering it was armed citizens who made sure that Americans aren't Brits :P I think it's far more bizarre when one recalls British history. Namely the constant struggle of Liberty between the British people and the British Crown. Long story short, every time a tyrannical monarch would deny the right to bare arms the people would quickly or slowly over time be denied most other rights. This goes back to what Aristotle believed, without the ability to protect one's natural rights by force of arms, one has no constitutional rights (legally recognized rights). Edited April 10, 2014 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 If it makes you feel better, I live in America and I still find it fundamentally bizarre. :P You always told me I was British at heart, though. So what exactly is your position here? Do you advocate repealing the second amendment? Do you think the government should forcibly disarm citizens? If so, do you believe in the right to self-defense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Actually, I don't think natural law theory involves morality to arrive at rights - at least not in the sense you are using it (although I could be wrong.) I also don't think gun rights advocates use morality in their main arguments, do they? Maybe I'm missing something. On the other hand, 'human rights' (excepting those that fall under 'natural law') are, almost by definition, moral principles. From where I stand they also seem pretty arbitrary, but that's my perspective - I'm sure some PHD somewhere has written a paper explaining why they're not. The entire idea that people have "rights" that others ought not to violate is itself a moral principle - though many try to deny that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted April 11, 2014 Author Share Posted April 11, 2014 (edited) Edit Edited April 11, 2014 by FuturePriest387 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted April 11, 2014 Author Share Posted April 11, 2014 So what exactly is your position here? Do you advocate repealing the second amendment? Do you think the government should forcibly disarm citizens? If so, do you believe in the right to self-defense? I honestly do not know just what I believe in concerning guns. I do know that I'm a good shot and gunpowder smells amazing. I do believe in the right to self-defense. I'm just not certain guns are the only way to defend yourself. Going off the example of being able to defend against the U.S. armed forces, we're honestly screwed if all we have are guns. If the right to bear arms was put in place to keep the government at odds with us, doesn't that mean in this day and age civilians should also have the right to own tanks, B-16's, frag grenades, and drones? Warfare has moved far beyond just firearms. There are enough nuclear warheads in the world to destroy the entire earth sixteen times. I don't think the Founding Fathers would have stopped at giving us the right to own firearms if they were alive today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 I honestly do not know just what I believe in concerning guns. I do know that I'm a good shot and gunpowder smells amazing. I do believe in the right to self-defense. I'm just not certain guns are the only way to defend yourself. Going off the example of being able to defend against the U.S. armed forces, we're honestly screwed if all we have are guns. If the right to bear arms was put in place to keep the government at odds with us, doesn't that mean in this day and age civilians should also have the right to own tanks, B-16's, frag grenades, and drones? Warfare has moved far beyond just firearms. There are enough nuclear warheads in the world to destroy the entire earth sixteen times. I don't think the Founding Fathers would have stopped at giving us the right to own firearms if they were alive today. As long as you don't believe that you have the right to prevent others from owning guns, I don't see a problem. You still seem to be looking at the issue from the constitutional perspective. The constitution is unimportant. It cannot create or destroy rights. It's a document written by a few people. It doesn't "give" any rights. The bill of rights is not necessary. If you stripped it from the constitution, the absences created would not amount to a grant of power. The constitution as ratified was sold as a granting only the enumerated powers. This was the objection to including a bill of rights. States already had bills of rights, and the federal government was supposed to be a general government of enumerated powers, not the national government with elastic clauses and emanations of penumbras that it now possesses. As far as the tactical concerns, a guerrilla army is difficult to beat, especially when you're trying to avoid destroying infrastructure. If the US treated insurrectionists to the tactics used against foreigners, they'd succeed in recruiting more opposition. You know, like what's happening now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold viewed their getting guns as a "God given right". Of course, they were both underaged and used people to get them, though, so. Also they killed people. :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold viewed their getting guns as a "God given right". Of course, they were both underaged and used people to get them, though, so. Also they killed people. :| I was under the impression they were atheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now