Guns As A " God-given Right"

[havok579257]

If someone wants to ban something on their private property, I believe that's fine. I don't bother with rules about proper signage, either. Technically, if someone puts up a sign that doesn't conform to the law, or fails to put up a sign at all entrances, you can legally carry on the property. It's enough for me that a property owner makes the request. There's a coffee shop that has a sign (it's displayed properly). I still choose to go there. I like the coffee, the people are nice and it's a family owned operation. I consider it a silly request, since it will not deter those who wish to initiate violence, but it is what it is.

 

 

I'm not talking about employees, I'm talking about taxpayers. I don't advocate arming teachers. I advocate not threatening people with the initiation of violence. I have no desire to pay to lock some teacher up because he or she carried a firearm onto school property. I think the very notion is barbaric. If someone brought something on my property that I personally didn't want there, I can imagine asking them to leave; I cannot imagine throwing them in a cage over it. 

 

 

well i agree.  i think the teacher should be fired on the spot for not adhearing to the school policy/rules of conduct for employees but they should not be thrown in jail unless obviously they were threatening harm with the gun.    

[Winchester]

well i agree.  i think the teacher should be fired on the spot for not adhearing to the school policy/rules of conduct for employees but they should not be thrown in jail unless obviously they were threatening harm with the gun.    

Firing a public employee takes a lot of effort, around here. Suspension first, then discipline, including termination. Then lawyering, then rehiring iwth backpay. 

[NotreDame]

Firing a public employee takes a lot of effort, around here. Suspension first, then discipline, including termination. Then lawyering, then rehiring iwth backpay running for Mayor of DC. 

 

Fixed!
 

[havok579257]

Firing a public employee takes a lot of effort, around here. Suspension first, then discipline, including termination. Then lawyering, then rehiring iwth backpay. 

 

oh i agree.  its due to unions which although good in idea, over reach their power and keep bad people still employed. 

[Winchester]

oh i agree.  its due to unions which although good in idea, over reach their power and keep bad people still employed. 

 

Solidarity is important. Preferably all mankind, but in practice, smaller groups must practice it. People tend to choose flocks. If a union holds its members to a high standard, it can become an asset not only to members, but to employers and consumers. This is my opinion as a union member.

 

Pretty sure our sustained agreement has brought about the apocalypse.

[Socrates]

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.

 

The founding fathers actually feared a standing army, which they saw as a means for the state to oppress the citizens (as had been done by Britain and other European powers).  They favored state militias made up of well-armed, well-trained citizens who owned their own weapons.  The militia was to consist of all male citizens capable of fighting.  It's hard to use the military to oppress the citizenry, when the military is the citizenry.

 

I agree with you about the founding fathers, and agree to an essentially unlimited right to bear arms - though I'd personally draw the line at weapons of mass destruction.

 

Most of today's political debate over second amendment rights doesn't concern "extreme" examples like privately-owned nukes, or even personal tanks or attack helicopters, but rather certain types of rather ordinary rifles that certain politicians deem too scary-looking for civilian ownership.

 

 

If you think you, or most other ordinary people, can defend yourself against a serious armed attacker using only your flippin' sweet ninja skillz, you've probably been playing too many Batman video games.  Guns help level the playing field, and give those physically weaker, including women and the elderly, a chance to defend themselves against the physically strong.  Remember, God created all men, but Sam Colt made them equal.

 

In short, the right to own and bear arms (which includes guns) is intimately tied to the right to self-defense.

And maybe I misread it, but your original posts seemed to ridicule the entire idea of a right to own and bear arms.

[Socrates]

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.

 

:|

 

From what I've heard, Harris and Klebold didn't give any consideration to God, period.

 

 

But perhaps if others were carrying guns on the premises, the body count might have been a lot lower.

[PhuturePriest]

The founding fathers actually feared a standing army, which they saw as a means for the state to oppress the citizens (as had been done by Britain and other European powers).  They favored state militias made up of well-armed, well-trained citizens who owned their own weapons.  The militia was to consist of all male citizens capable of fighting.  It's hard to use the military to oppress the citizenry, when the military is the citizenry.

 

I agree with you about the founding fathers, and agree to an essentially unlimited right to bear arms - though I'd personally draw the line at weapons of mass destruction.

 

Most of today's political debate over second amendment rights doesn't concern "extreme" examples like privately-owned nukes, or even personal tanks or attack helicopters, but rather certain types of rather ordinary rifles that certain politicians deem too scary-looking for civilian ownership.

 

 

If you think you, or most other ordinary people, can defend yourself against a serious armed attacker using only your flippin' sweet ninja skillz, you've probably been playing too many Batman video games.  Guns help level the playing field, and give those physically weaker, including women and the elderly, a chance to defend themselves against the physically strong.  Remember, God created all men, but Sam Colt made them equal.

 

In short, the right to own and bear arms (which includes guns) is intimately tied to the right to self-defense.

And maybe I misread it, but your original posts seemed to ridicule the entire idea of a right to own and bear arms.

 

Thank you for the excellent post. I was admittedly at the time very confused about what I thought concerning gun ownership, mostly because I was thinking of myself in my living situations. I live in a very non-homicidal State, in a great part of the non-homicidal State, and I am of course a young man around the peak of my physical shape (this isn't to say I believe I can stop bullets with my ninja stare.) However, when you brought to mind people who aren't as physically capable like the elderly, I realized I was looking at gun rights in the narrowest scope I can look through -- my life.

[ardillacid]

 I am of course a young man around the peak of my physical shape 

so many sads and feels

[PhuturePriest]

so many sads and feels

 

Peak physical condition, emotions and hormones as erratic as a crazy straw.

 

[ardillacid]

Peak physical condition, emotions and hormones as erratic as a crazy straw.

 

it's all downhill from 12 years old

[PhuturePriest]

it's all downhill from 12 years old

 

That's what I was afraid of.

[OnlySunshine]

Speaking as a Brit, I find the concept that gun ownership is a "right" of any kind to be fundamentally bizarre.

 

I'm a pacifist when it comes to guns and war.  I know that old saying "guns don't kill people; people kill people" but if you provide guns, then you have a lethal way for people to kill others.  I'm a moderate (undeclared Independent; registered as Republican to vote in primaries) because I am not conservative with gun ownership.  I also don't believe in the death penalty.  Pro-life all the way!

[PhuturePriest]

I'm a pacifist when it comes to guns and war.  I know that old saying "guns don't kill people; people kill people" but if you provide guns, then you have a lethal way for people to kill others.  I'm a moderate (undeclared Independent; registered as Republican to vote in primaries) because I am not conservative with gun ownership.  I also don't believe in the death penalty.  Pro-life all the way!

 

The problem is, there's no way to take away everyone's guns. All you'll be doing is taking away guns from law-abiding citizens and not the criminals. This will make homicides skyrocket.

[Lilllabettt]

I'm a pacifist when it comes to guns and war.  I know that old saying "guns don't kill people; people kill people" but if you provide guns, then you have a lethal way for people to kill others.  I'm a moderate (undeclared Independent; registered as Republican to vote in primaries) because I am not conservative with gun ownership.  I also don't believe in the death penalty.  Pro-life all the way!

 

Here in Boston, we're coming up on the anniversary of the Marathon bombings. The perps of that mass casualty situation used a pressure cooker. Shame on corporate america for selling pressure cookers. They provide "a lethal way for people to kill others."

 

(Btw, are there "nonlethal" ways for people to kill others?)

 

WHY DO PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE, JUST SO YOU CAN HAVE YOUR CHICKEN DINNER? WHY???????

SELFISH FATTIES AND YOUR CHICKEN DINNERS!!!

[Winchester]

A pacifist cannot support gun control, so I'm cool with pacifists.

[OnlySunshine]

A pacifist cannot support gun control, so I'm cool with pacifists.

 

No, a pacifist is anti-war and believes in nonviolence so I am for gun control.  Most pacifists believe that self-defense is necessary, though, but there are better ways, in my opinion of defending yourself than using a gun.

[OnlySunshine]

Here in Boston, we're coming up on the anniversary of the Marathon bombings. The perps of that mass casualty situation used a pressure cooker. Shame on corporate america for selling pressure cookers. They provide "a lethal way for people to kill others."

 

(Btw, are there "nonlethal" ways for people to kill others?)

 

WHY DO PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE, JUST SO YOU CAN HAVE YOUR CHICKEN DINNER? WHY???????

SELFISH FATTIES AND YOUR CHICKEN DINNERS!!!

 

That's the first time I've ever heard ANYONE use a pressure cooker to kill people, though.  You hear about people using guns all the time.  So, it really isn't the same.  I get it, though.  I understand the argument that inanimate objects aren't inherently evil but we are supposed to avoid occasions of sin.  Having a gun in your house makes it so you'd be able to use it whenever necessary, whether for self-defense or violence.  It's just too dangerous.  Especially since it seems gun locks don't always work...

Edited April 14, 2014 by MaterMisericordiae

[PhuturePriest]

No, a pacifist is anti-war and believes in nonviolence so I am for gun control.  Most pacifists believe that self-defense is necessary, though, but there are better ways, in my opinion of defending yourself than using a gun.

 

How can you be a pacifist but still be for the government taking away everyone's guns through violence?

[PhuturePriest]

That's the first time I've ever heard ANYONE use a pressure cooker to kill people, though.  You hear about people using guns all the time.  So, it really isn't the same.

 

Take away guns and watch how creative people get with ways to kill innocent people. Ever heard of the nail bomb the IRA uses? It's made completely out of things found in your everyday parts store. It's cheap, easy to make, and very deadly. Things like that will start to spike in use if you took guns away. This isn't to mention all of the criminals who will still have guns because criminals don't obey laws.