Posted on 05/05/2013 10:11:14 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Do you trust all of your neighbors with canisters of mustard gas. Every thug in the hood with a machine gun? Every depressed emo goth with a tactical nuke?
I don’t remember adding chemical weapons.
The thug with the machine gun would most likely be too afraid to use it when EVERYONE else has one too
Afraid? Really? Drugged up, coked up and pathologically angry with an Uzi in his hands and he’s going to make a well-considered reasonable assessment of risk? Really? I see it differently.
People like that won’t last long unless we have a government that coddles them, feeds them and restricts the rights of others to defend themselves from people like that.
Why won’t they last? They’re well armed and motivated. The strongest among them will survive and prosper. The entire history of the natural world supports that contention.
BTW, what’s the conceptual difference between mustard gas and a howitzer. With either, there is very little control over how gets killed in the receiving end. I don’t see a chemical exception in my copy of the second amendment, perhaps you could point it out.
I don’t see where mustard gas is a firearm. My point is that if people were to have to take care of themselves and their community, people who would use such weapons on others would not last very long.
Lost me right there. The author is a turd.
Do you always decide what your God given rights are based on what coked up meth addicts will or wont do?
I saw a bad apple on the ground, time to burn down the orchard
No but I do give some thought to the downside of selling tactical nukes over the counter to anyone who can come up with the cash. I’m not a big fan, in P J O’rourke’s words, of giving car keys and whiskey to fifteen year-olds either.
Oh, and Tomasky, self defense isn't granted by a government, it's given to us by G-d.
5.56mm
I don’t see the word “firearms” in the second amendment. As I read the language, “arms” means weapons. Knives, swords, spears, mustard gas, tactical nukes, B-25’s, cruise missiles, battleships, howitzers and hand grenades are all considered arms. I have no problem with limiting the right of people and barring people from own weapons of mass destruction.
Perhaps you see it differently and would be content to have an eighteen year-old hothead with a cruise missile at his disposal.
Also, the Second Amendment is the only one that includes “shall not be infringed.”
Amazing that he doesn't equate the "absolute right" that the left swears is in the Constitution - that absolute right of "abortion at any time for any reason" to mass butchery. Why isn't he up in arms to stop the true "MASS BUTCHERY" Oh how the left deludes itself on rights.
“Since you absolutely have no right to be on my property without my permission, then whether you do or don’t happen to be bearing arms while you are violating my property rights is irrelevant.”
So stripping away the non-essentials, your answer to my question is “No, we cannot all agree that I absolutely have the right to bear arms...”.
“I would say it all depends on whether I have a gun and whether the ‘law’ prevents me from owning a gun.
If you have a gun, and I don’t.... you win.”
Having the might doesn’t mean one has the right.
Nice bit of sophistry, but I didn't bring up any non-essentials. It is self-evident that you have no right to violate my rights, and vice versa. As they say, your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose.
So if, given that, you want to draw the conclusion that there are no unlimited rights, more power to you. But what useful or relevant point have you made? Is it that because you have no right to violate my rights, there are no such things as rights? That would, in essence, be the reductio ad absurdum of your statement.
So for the record, I can agree that your right to exercise your rights ends where your exercise of those rights infringes on mine.
“No.”
I appreciate that you actually answered the question.
“But that sophistry has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms being an absolute.”
Sophistry? How so?
“You don’t have a right to be on someone’s property without their permission which does nothing to impair your right to keep and bear arms.”
It’s an impairment if you require me to give up the right to keep and bear arms in order to take advantage of your permission to be on your property. It may impair one from keeping and bearing arms between his residence and someone else’s property.
“Kind of a pathetic attempt at a straw man if you ask me.”
I didn’t ask you. The only reason to care that you think it’s pathetic is that this indicates you haven’t really thought. I’d like people to think more.
“Nice bit of sophistry...”
What was fallacious?
“...but I didn’t bring up any non-essentials.”
A “yes” or “no” answer was all that was essential.
“It is self-evident that you have no right to violate my rights, and vice versa. As they say, your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose.”
But it’s not always self-evident whose rights should prevail when rights are in conflict. And your right to place the tip of your nose ends where I’m swinging my arms.
“So...statement.”
Sorry, but that paragraph doesn’t track for me.
“So for the record, I can agree that your right to exercise your rights ends where your exercise of those rights infringes on mine.”
And I can say the same thing to you. We can each say the same thing to anyone else. So when people say that to each other, how can anyone determine whose rights prevail?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.