85 replies to this topic

[questionmark]

AsteroidX, on 05 February 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

You 2 are talking apples and oranges. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with ones right to life. But I agree thats a founding principle of this country.

No, we are not. The right to life takes precedence over the right to bear arms, which is why the government can limit the right to all who pose a risk (i.e. felons and brain damaged).

[AsteroidX]

Quote

which is why the government can limit the right to all who pose a risk (i.e. felons and brain damaged).

Only on an individual basis which they gave up for the opportunity to blanket exclude groups. Which is not what was intended. The only reason I think they got away with it is because they listed those convicted of banking fraud are not considered bound by the felon cannot own a firearm rule. Thus by making an exception to there blanket rule they prevented from violating peoples rights. Im not saying felons and mentally ill should have guns what I am saying is that right should be taken away on an individual basis based on the situation. Same with mentally ill as we are just opening this door what sort of draconian laws are going to come out about mentally ill and firearm rights. Will anyone ever prescribed Paxil be included or only those that have been committed. Its a slippery slope we are walking down and the original way of removing this right on an individual basis is the only one that ensures people do not have there 2nd Amendment Rights violated.

And yes Im well aware this is pointless position to take but it is the correct one IMO.

[Uncle Sam]

questionmark, on 05 February 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

No, we are not. The right to life takes precedence over the right to bear arms, which is why the government can limit the right to all who pose a risk (i.e. felons and brain damaged).

I forefathers gave up their lives to protect this constitution, even secure rights for everyone, even the right to rebel against our government if it becomes tyrants. A few guns deaths vs. tyrant government who will kill scores of Americans to keep in power? Which one do you choose?

Drones able to attack Americans?

Pretty transparent? Not really, no define rules. They can kill any American who decides to revolt against the government, by labeling them as a terrorist if they want, if they threaten the standing government.

Edited by Uncle Sam, 05 February 2013 - 02:02 PM.

[questionmark]

AsteroidX, on 05 February 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

Only on an individual basis which they gave up for the opportunity to blanket exclude groups. Which is not what was intended. The only reason I think they got away with it is because they listed those convicted of banking fraud are not considered bound by the felon cannot own a firearm rule. Thus by making an exception to there blanket rule they prevented from violating peoples rights. Im not saying felons and mentally ill should have guns what I am saying is that right should be taken away on an individual basis based on the situation. Same with mentally ill as we are just opening this door what sort of draconian laws are going to come out about mentally ill and firearm rights. Will anyone ever prescribed Paxil be included or only those that have been committed. Its a slippery slope we are walking down and the original way of removing this right on an individual basis is the only one that ensures people do not have there 2nd Amendment Rights violated.

And yes Im well aware this is pointless position to take but it is the correct one IMO.

Nobody says anything about blanket because the right to self defense, and the possession of weapons therefore, has always been upheld by the court. And that based on the same principle that the right to life takes precedence.

[questionmark]

Uncle Sam, on 05 February 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

I forefathers gave up their lives to protect this constitution, even secure rights for everyone, even the right to rebel against our government if it becomes tyrants. A few guns deaths vs. tyrant government who will kill scores of Americans to keep in power? Which one do you choose?

I choose the rule of law because in any country with a democratic government the laws can be changed by the people if they so choose (by petition and by voting), if they don't choose to do so that is the tough luck of those who want something else and certainly not a cause to come shooting.

[Uncle Sam]

questionmark, on 05 February 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

I choose the rule of law because in any country with a democratic government the laws can be changed by the people if they so choose (by petition and by voting), if they don't choose to do so that is the tough luck of those who want something else and certainly not a cause to come shooting.

That is just it, it is not the people of America is choosing this, it is the government that is. We have NO say what laws or things they do after they are elected.

[questionmark]

Uncle Sam, on 05 February 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

That is just it, it is not the people of America is choosing this, it is the government that is. We have NO say what laws or things they do after they are elected.

Start a petition and if enough people care about it it will pass. Your problem is, when it comes to arms, the majority could not care less as long as they get to keep their six shooter (no matter what the laws to keep it are).

[Uncle Sam]

questionmark, on 05 February 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

Start a petition and if enough people care about it it will pass. Your problem is, when it comes to arms, the majority could not care less as long as they get to keep their six shooter (no matter what the laws to keep it are).

How dense can you be? A government that is willing to kill it's own citizens, a government who is incompetent with spending, who know our nation is on a verge of civil war or revolution is willing to listen to a petition by the American citizens regarding the policies they deploy? Obama already has shown he won't listen to American citizens, the congress is irrelevant in his eyes. His own words he stated he can get away with anything. Seriously...

[questionmark]

Uncle Sam, on 05 February 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

How dense can you be? A government that is willing to kill it's own citizens, a government who is incompetent with spending, who know our nation is on a verge of civil war or revolution is willing to listen to a petition by the American citizens regarding the policies they deploy? Obama already has shown he won't listen to American citizens, the congress is irrelevant in his eyes. His own words he stated he can get away with anything. Seriously...

Make a paranoia check, it might help you.

[Uncle Sam]

questionmark, on 05 February 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

Make a paranoia check, it might help you.

Google all of it, it is true. True to the fault.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

Obama already has shown he won't listen to American citizens, the congress is irrelevant in his eyes

This

[questionmark]

AsteroidX, on 05 February 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

This

And if he does anything illegal anybody can sue against it, if nobody does nobody cares. Then the checks and balances cease to work because of nobody caring. Still no reason to come shooting.

[AsteroidX]

No reason to live under a Tyrannical Government. It is only when that line is crossed that we are to come shooting. Having the opportunity to sue the president >? Or a Law ? are you really smoking that much ? lets be real. We depend on responsible government to not get us into these situations to begin with. Not to begin a multi year multi million dollar journey to repel an constitutional abuse. Thats called lining the pockets of lawyers the same group of people that enacted that wacked out laws to begin with.

[questionmark]

AsteroidX, on 05 February 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

No reason to live under a Tyrannical Government. It is only when that line is crossed that we are to come shooting. Having the opportunity to sue the president >? Or a Law ? are you really smoking that much ? lets be real. We depend on responsible government to not get us into these situations to begin with. Not to begin a multi year multi million dollar journey to repel an constitutional abuse. Thats called lining the pockets of lawyers the same group of people that enacted that wacked out laws to begin with.

If it bothers you, you have the right to use the law to stop them. And as long as you have the law you have no right to use violence, regardless of how important you think you are.

[AsteroidX]

I guess thats where we disagree. In many places across the Globe.