I guess I have to say it again; everyone who is a law abiding adult, has the right to bear arms - everyone.

[WoodsPlinker]

The sad thing is this country is one of the few were people might listen and acknowledge this point to be truth.

If you argued this in most European countries it would be like telling a bunch of slave owners that slavery was wrong.

Life is precious, the ability to protect life is paramount to it's right to exist.

The world has been trying so hard to deny this and place our lives in the ownership of the government to protect it. But the truth is they can't protect us all anymore then they can control us all. Our lives are our own to live, and protect.

 

[awshoot]

Tough topic, although I agree that 'human rights' are not specific to a nation, I despise when I find (generally the left) tries to apply rights to everyone in this country, regardless of citizenship.
...
So yes, although I like to think of 'God given rights,' at the same time, the rights we have in this country were written with the blood of forefathers who demanded those rights be acknowledged. Frankly, I don't care about foreign nationals having the same rights in this country as Americans, they can apply for citizenship if it is that important to them or they can endeavor to make their homeland as awesome as this country.

I think what the founders were saying was that certain fundamental rights exist outside the law. Think of these fundamental rights along the lines of a fact of nature -- like the speed of light. People can discover it, measure it, write about it, use it or ignore it, but those who ignore such a fact will ultimately fail in any technology in which that fact is important.

The founders were saying something similar about the human rights -- that they are a fact of nature (*) and governments that violate those rights are unstable and potentially not viable for the long term. As for America, the farther down the road we go in infringing on those rights, the easier it is engage in further infringement and the closer our nation comes being added to the list of many other failed nations which ignored essential rights.

(*) or human nature. Humans don't like being hemmed in and take it too far, you get revolutions.

 

[Flopsweat]

I think what the founders were saying was that certain fundamental rights exist outside the law. Think of these fundamental rights along the lines of a fact of nature -- like the speed of light. People can discover it, measure it, write about it, use it or ignore it, but those who ignore such a fact will ultimately fail in any technology in which that fact is important.

The founders were saying something similar about the human rights -- that they are a fact of nature (*) and governments that violate those rights are unstable and potentially not viable for the long term. As for America, the farther down the road we go in infringing on those rights, the easier it is engage in further infringement and the closer our nation comes being added to the list of many other failed nations which ignored essential rights.

(*) or human nature. Humans don't like being hemmed in and take it too far, you get revolutions.

Look up the difference between inalienable and unalienable. It's an eye-opener.

 

[gunnoob75]

Where does the second amendment say "Law abiding?"

Forgetting to turn on your head lights is against the law. You are now a criminal. Now what?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I choose to be law abiding or not....
If I choose not to be...then depending on the laws that I break...
I can forfeit my Right to live as a free man.

No headlights at night...more than likely a ticket and a fine...
A Murder...then yeah I should no longer be allowed the same Rights as others.....
Andy

 

[gunnoob75]

So those proud boys who got felony's for self defense don't deserve their natural born rights anymore, huh? That's a pretty bubblegumty thing to do to another person, Andy. Your rights are null and void if you advocate removing them from others.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

So those proud boys who got felony's for self defense don't deserve their natural born rights anymore, huh? That's a pretty bubblegumty thing to do to another person, Andy. Your rights are null and void if you advocate removing them from others.

Um....first :
I don't know what you are talking about...
Second ....Self Defense ain't murder.
Andy

 

[gunnoob75]

Um....first :
I don't know what you are talking about...
Second ....Self Defense ain't murder.
Andy

It is if you get a liberal judge. That's why it is a right that "Shall not be infringed."

 

[American123]

I think what the founders were saying was that certain fundamental rights exist outside the law. Think of these fundamental rights along the lines of a fact of nature -- like the speed of light. People can discover it, measure it, write about it, use it or ignore it, but those who ignore such a fact will ultimately fail in any technology in which that fact is important.

The founders were saying something similar about the human rights -- that they are a fact of nature (*) and governments that violate those rights are unstable and potentially not viable for the long term. As for America, the farther down the road we go in infringing on those rights, the easier it is engage in further infringement and the closer our nation comes being added to the list of many other failed nations which ignored essential rights.

(*) or human nature. Humans don't like being hemmed in and take it too far, you get revolutions.

I think we have expressed similar notions, that people have, 'certain inalienable rights,' and regardless of whether governmental figures acknowledge those rights or not, they exist, however, they are not experienced by people in all countries (obviously they are not).

Frankly, I find a general lack of need for the majority of all services performed by .gov and believe that private enterprise can do just about everything better, and cheaper.
I also find it increasingly disagreeable to have "elected officials" attempting to dictate how I can live my life and what items I am allowed to own, keep, etc.

I understand that the individual is the smallest minority group and as an individual I resent that a larger group of other people can vote to strip me of my rights or legally purchased items, I find that disagreeable, and it reminds me of how this country came into existence.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

It is if you get a liberal judge. That's why it is a right that "Shall not be infringed."

Well I still have no real idea what you are talking about or what it has to do with what I said ...So be plain and clear or quit quoting me.
Andy

 

[Alexx1401]

So those proud boys who got felony's for self defense don't deserve their natural born rights anymore, huh? That's a pretty bubblegumty thing to do to another person, Andy. Your rights are null and void if you advocate removing them from others.

While a lot of us do not like some of what happens in courts if we decide we can do as we please and ignore courts, then that means we are saying others can. Don't like the way its set up here? Fight it legally. Saying you want to ignore what the courts say and that anyone who wants to be is just above the law only leads to one thing, a mess. After all if ignoring the courts is good for you, then its good for everyone who "feels" the courts are not for them.

 

[gunnoob75]

Well I still have no real idea what you are talking about or what it has to do with what I said ...So be plain and clear or quit quoting me.
Andy

You either don't understand our natural born rights, or, don't actually support them. The second amendment does not have a "law abiding" clause. It has nothing. It is that way by design; it's too easy to criminalize innocent people. For no reason, what so ever, should someones 2nd Amendment protected right be removed. Ever.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

You either don't understand our natural born rights, or, don't actually support them. The second amendment does not have a "law abiding" clause. It has nothing. It is that way by design; it's too easy to criminalize innocent people. For no reason, what so ever, should someones 2nd Amendment protected right be removed. Ever.

You are wrong on both accounts.

Now Stop Quoting Me
Andy

 

[Alexx1401]

You either don't understand our natural born rights, or, don't actually support them. The second amendment does not have a "law abiding" clause. It has nothing. It is that way by design; it's too easy to criminalize innocent people. For no reason, what so ever, should someones 2nd Amendment protected right be removed. Ever.

Sadly we do not have a perfect system. We do have a way to change it. There is a "right way" to do so and a "wrong way" to do so. Many appoint themselves "experts" on the law and set out to say laws on the books do no apply to them because they know better. That works fine until you end up in front of a judge.
Knew a guy fairly well long ago who pushed this to prison. Long before algore invented the net he ordered some videos on the law. After a while he decided he was above a whole bunch of laws. Did not need a drivers license, was above all gun laws and such. I tried to tell him he was just begging for trouble, you could tell him nothing. finally he ended up in jail a few times, then the Feds came for him. He poked them until they came full on. Then after he made a huge mess he fled the country. Well we know how that works. They found him, brought him back and made him comfortable at a prison for a good while.
The system we have is not perfect, often it's plain bad. If you chose to ignore laws you are going to have to be willing to face the results.

 

[gunnoob75]

Sadly we do not have a perfect system. We do have a way to change it. There is a "right way" to do so and a "wrong way" to do so. Many appoint themselves "experts" on the law and set out to say laws on the books do no apply to them because they know better. That works fine until you end up in front of a judge.
Knew a guy fairly well long ago who pushed this to prison. Long before algore invented the net he ordered some videos on the law. After a while he decided he was above a whole bunch of laws. Did not need a drivers license, was above all gun laws and such. I tried to tell him he was just begging for trouble, you could tell him nothing. finally he ended up in jail a few times, then the Feds came for him. He poked them until they came full on. Then after he made a huge mess he fled the country. Well we know how that works. They found him, brought him back and made him comfortable at a prison for a good while.
The system we have is not perfect, often it's plain bad. If you chose to ignore laws you are going to have to be willing to face the results.

I didn't say to ignore the law. I said the law was wrong.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Calling it like it is. You don't have to like it. You don't even have to read it.

Fudds on this board be damned; the second amendment protects a natural born right that is not subject to anyone's opinion. "Shall not be infringed." It is a no-go zone. It says absolutely nothing about criminality, courts, jurys or trials.

It also says nothing about size, types, methods, effectiveness or physical appearance of weapons, for the record.

You actually know nothing about me...You Think you do ...but you are wrong.
Last time STOP QUOTING ME
Andy

 

[gunnoob75]

You actually know nothing about me...You Think you do ...but you are wrong.
Last time STOP QUOTING ME
Andy

I don't need to. I am commenting directly about something you said -right in this thread-.

 

[Alexx1401]

I didn't say to ignore the law. I said the law was wrong.

Well I have to say often in my opinion, yes it is. I still have a choice. follow what it says while I help fight it, or face the results when I get caught. I can complain all I want if I break the law because it's "wrong" but, I still knew what I was doing and took the risk. Simple

 

[gunnoob75]

Well I have to say often in my opinion, yes it is. I still have a choice. follow what it says while I help fight it, or face the results when I get caught. I can complain all I want if I break the law because it's "wrong" but, I still knew what I was doing and took the risk. Simple

Alright, sounds good. I didn't say anything about breaking the law, though.

I said the law was wrong.

 

[DB is Here]

Have your convo w/o name calling or you'll own having this thread closed.
Thank you.
Inferring someone's a Fudd is against forum rules.