Posted on 10/08/2015 3:22:19 PM PDT by Torcert
Proviso – for those who know the answer right off the bat this is entirely obvious. But there are new people to the fight for our God-given and Constitutionally affirmed Civil-Rights just entering the fray and so this is for them.
So why does the #nationalSocialistLeft obsess over this issue. It wouldn’t of helped in many recent shootings so it’s a pointless exercise if it is supposed to ‘solve’ this problem. So why do the gun gabbers keep circling back to carp on this talking point ad nauseam?
It’s simple to understand if one just works backward from the gun gabber’s ultimate goal – CONFISCATION.
Side note: please don’t bore the rest of us with the tired talking point that ‘no one’s talking CONFISCATION’. His majesty Obama has already praised Australia’s CONFISCATION ‘solution’ so that ship has sailed.
Registration is One step backwards from CONFISCATION, and one cannot have Registration without Intergalactic Background Checks QED.
Parenthetically - CONFISCATION cannot take place without a list of names and one cannot have a proper list of names without the government in total control over this particular type of private property.
We know this is the ‘Fatal sequence’ (in more ways than one) that has taken place with other repressive regimes that have deprived the people of their Civil-Rights. In most cases the Registration step is accompanied by earnest promises that Registration won’t lead to confiscation.
And of course, we know from bitter history that this is a BOLD faced LIE.
And we know that there is no way to enforce Intergalactic Background Checks without Registration.
That would be the next two or three steps if they ever get IBC’s. Knowing that these won’t stop any future shootings (that’s a feature, not bug for the gun grabbers) the clarion call after a shooting will be registration.
Many will argue that Registration IS CONFISCATION since yielding control over our God-given and Constitutionally affirmed Civil-Rights effectively renders them moot and I would tend to whole heartily agree. Thus the reason that Intergalactic Background Checks are so dangerous to the cause of Liberty, and the reason we need to fight them tooth and nail.
If no one is allowed to transfer a gun, data from the Intergalactic Background Checks will tell them exactly who is armed and what they have. And it can expected that after still another shooting (Do you see the pattern here?) the call will be for people to be required to register their guns.
For once the Government become the gatekeeper in obtaining a firearm it will be a matter of time before the process is ‘throttled back’ to those the #nationalSocialistLeft deem worthy to have their God-given and Constitutionally affirmed Civil-Rights.
BTW, I led off with this...Rhetorical questions one and all, but...
It's amazing how you continue to completely ignore the heart of my argument!No, It's a pointless #Strawman argument.
Do you believe that our 2nd Amendment right is a civil right and not a natural right?And you continue to completely ignore the fact that I am not buying your #strawman argument
Can you not answer my question and close the case for good?The case has already been closed, You Lost.
Until you do you lose the argument as you've not addressed my contention.To use your words: I see your opinions, wrong as they are, not facts.
No, it isn't. There is a distinct difference between civil and natural rights, one which you don't seem to recognize, grasp or accept.
Sorry, but you lose by default since you refuse to answer my question.
Please do, however, carry on with your worthless screeds. They're amusing and very entertaining.
No, it isn't.Ah yes, the common refrain from the purveyor of the #Strawman
Strawman Definition
A fallacy in which an opponent's argument is overstated or misrepresented in order to be more easily attacked or refuted.
http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/strawmanterm.htm
There is a distinct difference between civil and natural rights, one which you don't seem to recognize, grasp or accept.Repeating the same personal attacks has no effect on me - they do however show a distinct lack of intellectual acumen on your part - so keep them up in that regard.
Sorry, but you lose by default since you refuse to answer my question.Is this your ‘technique’ for “winning” arguments - make up #Strawman arguments and then DEMAND people answer to them and if they don't, you somehow “Win” anyway?
But I will use your words once again:
Please do, however, carry on with your worthless screeds. They're amusing and very entertaining.
I addressed your strongest point...your assertion of civil rights as natural rights when they're not.
...our God-given and Constitutionally affirmed Civil-Rights...
See? You made them the same when they're not!
God (Nature for atheists) makes natural rights, legislative bodies make civil rights. You said God made civil rights when that is an impossibility.
constitution affirms natural rights
You've discounted natural rights from the outset. It's a most curious thing.
Is it because civil rights can be abridged through legislation whereas natural rights cannot?
Revoking ones right to keep and bear arms would be much simpler to revoke if it were a civil right instead of a natural right.
You write that drivel and you take fake umbrage with me for pointing out the error of your thinking?!
You're a real piece of work!
Please do, however, carry on with your worthless screeds. They're amusing and very entertaining.
death by a thousand cuts is the tried and true
it killed the nuclear power industry
it now has queer marriages
If I were wrong in my argument you could eviscerate me on a point by point basis. That you don't, and can't, proves just how wrong you are and that is the funniest thing of all.
Prove me wrong. Show me how our right to keep and bear arms is a civil right and not a natural right. Simply give me some evidence, not just your say so, that proves your view to be the correct one.
So you still refuse to address my actual argument and you revel in your own ignorance.
Duly noted.
More #Strawmen.
YOU have already made it clear that this is an issue you brought up and which I have not delved into.
Again, I am not making any assertions with regard to your #Strawman argument.
Those are the facts.
Keep in mind that your incessant use of personal attacks aptly shows your lack of an intellectual argument.
If you want, I can report your abuse.
Prove me wrong. Show me how our right to keep and bear arms is a civil right and not a natural right. Simply give me some evidence, not just your say so, that proves your view to be the correct one.
Try READING my responses for once.
I have been reading your responses. You apparently haven't been reading mine else you would be refuting my argument and proving your assertion instead of practicing avoidance.
You brought this about with your original misrepresentation!
I'm challenging your assertion. It is now incumbent upon you to prove your assertion and disprove mine.
Your assertion is that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. My contention is that you're ignorant (uninformed) about the issue, that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right and you have misrepresented the issue.
Can you grasp that?
I would guess that you are the type that likes to argue just to argue.
You take issue with the use of certain terminology and try to make them into some great debate.
The point of my post is that the Gun Grabber really have one more hill to take and they will have it all.
Afterwards we can look forward to Registration, Confiscation and history has shown: Annihilation.
And here you are pointlessly carping about the terminology one is using.......
You brought this about with your original misrepresentation!
Can you grasp that?
Perhaps you can argue with yourself and leave me out of it.
Then you guess wrongly! You've made a gross misrepresentation that needs to be addressed.
You take issue with the use of certain terminology and try to make them into some great debate.
I've taken issue with your, now seemingly intentional, misuse and mischaracterization of a fundamental principle of liberty.
The point of my post is that the Gun Grabber really have one more hill to take and they will have it all.
Fine, make that point. However, you said that the post was for new people...
just entering the fray and so this is for them.
Yet in doing so you're making factually inaccurate statements!
And here you are pointlessly carping about the terminology one is using.......
The essential terminology you are using, which is inaccurate as you're using it.
While it may seem inconsequential to you it is fundamental that proper usage is observed when teaching others about an issue as you claim you want to do.
If a person doesn't know a specific right is a natural right, and immune from government intervention, then they're less likely to care about keeping that right and will allow the government to remove it through legislative dictate not realizing that it isn't in their power to do so.
That's what you're doing with your uninformed, misrepresenting "civil-rights" BS!
So you presume that you can misrepresent at will without an expectation of confrontation?
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.