Anti-gun propagandists

[MstrMsn]

He shot her with her own gun ffs no matter he beat her

her training failed

she should have shot him right

If she were carrying one, she may have been able to (I said MAY)... but she wasn't.

Also, under CT firearms laws, you need a Carry Permit in order to carry - didn't say if she had one of those. You don't, however, need a Carry Permit to own, though to do need what's called a Local Permit - with this, you can own, just not carry (does not restrict you from transporting to and from the gun store/range/home)

[Jinxdom]

Guns don't save lives they take them..... not unless one is under false pretence

It's all on how you look at it. I.E. IF she shot the kid many lives would of been saved. Need to see the whole picture.

The 2nd amendment is more along the lines of using anything to protect yourself. Rather then weapons or just guns. We gotta use what is at hand to do what's best. That just means better control on what we already have. We already proved that laws alone do not work. It's better laws and better enforcement that would fix this system. Let's face it though we are all a little bit lazier about it then we should. If we were all vigilant about the task of protecting ourselves and the ones we care about things like wouldn't happen. Regardless of whatever weapon was used.

[Drayno]

Oversword, where is the issue? Anti-gun does not mean prohibition. It means more control. That's the strawman that the author is attempting. That Schumer carries or Michael Moore use armed guards is not shocking, hypocritical, or even of any issue. Even repealing the 2nd amendment is not prohibition. A law could be made to do that. But that is far from reality. Our creator did not endow us with the right to bear arms.

Are you serious?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

So you're telling me that our unalienable rights don't exist? And you're telling me that we, the people, don't have the right to abolish a destructive government?

On top of this, the numerous unalienable rights expressly written in the Bill of Rights - including the right to bear arms - which you can exercise purely by picking up any gun; a natural right that we have preexisting by existing in the human condition, don't exist? I'm sorry, but we all have unalienable rights granted by our creator - creator possibly implicating a genesis from parents, thus genetic sources - not even expressly identifying with a God; a creator to some degree, nonetheless. We have unalienable rights not because God gave them to us - we have them because we're human, existing in the human condition, passing on genetic material through offspring, ensuring the continuation of our lines - acting as creators ourselves as our creators did for us, deriving the power we give to our children from the power that we hold - including the power for our children to protect themselves similarly to how our parents protected us - a power derived from humanity, not from government.

Your logic fails you here, ninjadude, because if we don't have unalienable rights, or the right to bear arms, how do we abolish a government that has destructive ends? How do we protect our pursuit of happiness? If we have rights since we're people, how is having the ability to bear a gun as a person not permissible? How do we secure our own safety without weapons? How do we kick those who usurp power and intrench themselves out of said footholds without arms?

Saying we don't have the ability to own guns when at least five founding fathers advocated armed citizenry - that advocated a free state - that advocated the ability to fight back against tyranny - contradicts The Federalist Papers, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and The Declaration of Independence.

You don't make any bloody sense.

The ideology of our forefathers is not outdated or irrelevant - not matter what argument you make.

If you even try to ignore The Declaration of Independence you don't really care about your own freedom.

Or your family and their freedom and your ability and freedom to ensure their safety.

That is, if you're even an American. If you aren't I can understand your disagreement with American ideology due to pure cultural differences. That would be understandable. But if you are American, I wouldn't call you a very good one.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Eonwe

[ninjadude]

Are you serious?

very serious

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

So you're telling me that our unalienable rights don't exist? And you're telling me that we, the people, don't have the right to abolish a destructive government?

no. That's NOT what I said. I said the 2nd amendment of the CONSTITUTION, which does NOT exist in the declaration, is not a god given right. God did not come down from on high and give man the right to "bear arms" against his fellow man. That is just silly.

On top of this, the numerous unalienable rights expressly written in the Bill of Rights - including the right to bear arms -

the bill of rights are not inalienable. They can be taken away. In fact, as others point out a number of them could be said to be removed already. And they are not "absolute". The supreme court has ruled that the bill of rights is not unlimited in it's scope.

Your logic fails you here, ninjadude, because if we don't have unalienable rights, or the right to bear arms, how do we abolish a government that has destructive ends?

I did NOT say we don't have inalienable rights. I said the 2nd amendment is not one of them. And it has no relevance in the 21st century in abolishing the US government. To believe so is ludicrous. To remove a government is done via the VOTE and participation in government. Not whining about it.

How do we protect our pursuit of happiness? If we have rights since we're people, how is having the ability to bear a gun as a person not permissible?

not having the 2nd amendment does NOT mean guns are prohibited. We protect our pursuit of happiness by the VOTE and participation in government. Not running around shooting.

How do we secwure our own safety without weapons? How do we kick those who usurp power and intrench themselves out of said footholds without arms?

AGAIN, not having a 2nd amendment does NOT mean guns are prohibited. To remove those who usurp power is done via VOTING and government participation. Arms are not required.

Saying we don't have the ability to own guns when at least five founding fathers advocated armed citizenry - that advocated a free state - that advocated the ability to fight back against tyranny - contradicts The Federalist Papers, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and The Declaration of Independence.

Again who said anything about stopping the ability to own guns? The founding fathers arguments in this case are quaint and useful for the 18th century. The constitution does not talk about government overthrow. The Bill of rights does not talk about government overthrow.

The ideology of our forefathers is not outdated or irrelevant - not matter what argument you make.

It is not written in stone. It can and does become outdated and thus in need of change. Which is why the constitution is changable.

If you even try to ignore The Declaration of Independence you don't really care about your own freedom.

Or your family and their freedom and your ability and freedom to ensure their safety.

Really? you clearly don't understand. I care very much about gun nuts who want to take away my freedom of life. I have no desire to take up "arms". That's why we have a military. If I don't like the government, I vote. I don't wrap myself around outdated notions that an armed populace can overthrow the 21st century US government.

That is, if you're even an American. If you aren't I can understand your disagreement with American ideology due to pure cultural differences. That would be understandable. But if you are American, I wouldn't call you a very good one.

I am an American. I am not brainwashed to believe that the constitution and what the FF said is written in stone and unchangeable. I'm intelligent enough to understand that the constitution (you know, the LAW of the land) was created by men and did not reference coming from god. Your slander is not appreciated.

[Drayno]

very serious

no. That's NOT what I said. I said the 2nd amendment of the CONSTITUTION, which does NOT exist in the declaration, is not a god given right. God did not come down from on high and give man the right to "bear arms" against his fellow man. That is just silly.

[/size][/font][/color]

the bill of rights are not inalienable. They can be taken away. In fact, as others point out a number of them could be said to be removed already. And they are not "absolute". The supreme court has ruled that the bill of rights is not unlimited in it's scope.

I did NOT say we don't have inalienable rights. I said the 2nd amendment is not one of them. And it has no relevance in the 21st century in abolishing the US government. To believe so is ludicrous. To remove a government is done via the VOTE and participation in government. Not whining about it.

not having the 2nd amendment does NOT mean guns are prohibited. We protect our pursuit of happiness by the VOTE and participation in government. Not running around shooting.

AGAIN, not having a 2nd amendment does NOT mean guns are prohibited. To remove those who usurp power is done via VOTING and government participation. Arms are not required.

Again who said anything about stopping the ability to own guns? The founding fathers arguments in this case are quaint and useful for the 18th century. The constitution does not talk about government overthrow. The Bill of rights does not talk about government overthrow.

It is not written in stone. It can and does become outdated and thus in need of change. Which is why the constitution is changable.

Really? you clearly don't understand. I care very much about gun nuts who want to take away my freedom of life. I have no desire to take up "arms". That's why we have a military. If I don't like the government, I vote. I don't wrap myself around outdated notions that an armed populace can overthrow the 21st century US government.

I am an American. I am not brainwashed to believe that the constitution and what the FF said is written in stone and unchangeable. I'm intelligent enough to understand that the constitution (you know, the LAW of the land) was created by men and did not reference coming from god. Your slander is not appreciated.

I'm pretty sure I clarified that we have the right to bear arms as given to us by our creator.

Creator being a flexible definition, given America is a platform for religious freedom...

That does not automatically specify God if there is a scientifically backed form of genesis such as procreation; parents being creators.

Thus, so long as we are human we have unalienable rights as endowed by our creator, guaranteed by our humanity.

The Bill of Rights was created so that government protects said unalienable rights that preexist government. How is that hard to understand?

Yes, the model for implementing change if the voting system - but what is the voting system fails? What then?

Not having the second amendment removes the expressed intent for civilians to have the ability to bear arms - which the second amendment says not to infringe.

It leaves the ability of citizens to be armed at the whim of the government and whatever definition or regulation it wishes to apply to its citizenry. Aka, the model formula for transforming citizens into subjects at the whim of a governing entity changing definitions.

The Constitution itself does not directly say we should overthrow our government if it is destructive to its own ends, instead The Declaration of Independence says so pretty clearly: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it "

The Bill of Rights doesn't say we should overthrow our government, but it gives us a means to defend ourselves from our government - the second amendment. And while these documents do not expressly say we should overthrow our government if it becomes destructive - their creators directly say we should maintain our ability to defend ourselves from our government and abolish if should it target our freedoms. What I meant by referencing the The Federalist Papers, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and The Declaration of Independence was that you aren't contradicting the direct texts of the documents, but instead their intended messages and ideology.

Yes, the Constitution is changeable - but we should be prudent enough to value whether said changes are beneficial or intended to be self-destructive of the document itself purposely, throwing away its meaning and altering its significance through bad amendments.

The century is irrelevant. The decade is irrelevant. The spirit of rebellion existed before people had swords. I'm sure people who only had swords thought it folly to rebel against those who had arrows, siege mechanisms, resources, strategic positioning, horses - but the point of resistance isn't to question what technology oppressors have - it is to have similar technology to stand a chance and to be a thorn in their side until the machine is worn down. That's what you don't get.

I'm not one to slander - I'm more adapt to be cheerfully condescending. You implying I'm brainwashed because I follow the advice of the people who founded this country - who studied centuries of history and governments - that our country was created so as to not make the same mistakes others made, is pretty freaking humorous at best, I must admit.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Eonwe

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Mind you, there is a few God given rules that pre-date the Bill of Rights - Thou shant kill/murder being one. Another, from a chap called Jesus being "if your enemy strikes your cheek, turn your head and offer your other cheek".

I think that sort of says "owning a device designed solely to destroy lives isn't au fait with the All Mighty".

[+OverSword]

Our creator did not endow us with the right to bear arms.

Strongly disagree. Show me one culture from the begining of time to the present that hasn't born arms.

[+OverSword]

Are you really going to compare a President to a guy in a 7-11 making a grab for beer to deffend your point.

Is the life of your prime ministers worth more than yours? Even to you?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Strongly disagree. Show me one culture from the begining of time to the present that hasn't born arms.

just because we'vw done it, doesn't mean God likes it.

swords into plowshares and all that.

[AsteroidX]

Anti gun agitators dont exist in my neck of the woods

[ninjadude]

I'm pretty sure I clarified that we have the right to bear arms as given to us by our creator.

saying it does not make it so. That does not exist in the constitution.

Yes, the model for implementing change if the voting system - but what is the voting system fails? What then?

that has failed you sometime in recent memory in the US?

The Bill of Rights doesn't say we should overthrow our government, but it gives us a means to defend ourselves from our government - the second amendment.

it says no such thing.

Yes, the Constitution is changeable - but we should be prudent enough to value whether said changes are beneficial or intended to be self-destructive of the document itself purposely, throwing away its meaning and altering its significance through bad amendments.

which is why amendments are voted upon.

The century is irrelevant. The decade is irrelevant.

it is relevant. There is no longer a need for militias.

I'm not one to slander - I'm more adapt to be cheerfully condescending. You implying I'm brainwashed because I follow the advice of the people who founded this country .

I didn't call someone unAmerican. You did. And you are brainwashed for ONLY believing in that advice and that it is unchangingly relevant in the 21st century. But it's a typical conservative bent.

[ninjadude]

Anti gun agitators dont exist in my neck of the woods

Let me guess. A rural area or south of the mason-dixon line?

[Drayno]

saying it does not make it so. That does not exist in the constitution.

that has failed you sometime in recent memory in the US?

it says no such thing.

which is why amendments are voted upon.

it is relevant. There is no longer a need for militias.

I didn't call someone unAmerican. You did. And you are brainwashed for ONLY believing in that advice and that it is unchangingly relevant in the 21st century. But it's a typical conservative bent.

The Bill of Rights, eh?

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." - Albert Gallatin, October 7, 1789

No, the second amendment says no such thing - but its creators have argued for its purpose and made it clear its an anti-tyrannical deterrent.

If the second amendment gives us militias and guns, then why? Why would Alexander Hamilton write the following?:

"If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people?"

You could say Hamilton wanted the militia to act as a national guard.

"If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the same body ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force."

However, he continues:

"It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power."

His intention was the militia, aka the people, to remain armed to be safeguarded against tyranny.

"But if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."

^ That is an expressed warning against tyranny.

Hamilton's view was those who want Americans unarmed want them enslaved.

The Uniform Militia Act of 1792 required that every male have a gun; demonstrating the need for every citizen to be armed to prevent tyranny. Again, it doesn't matter what technology our government has, every person who owns a gun is apart of the militia.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." - Richard Henry Lee, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry, 1805

I can't reason with you, so I'll just quote George Washington to validate my point.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" - George Washington

For your information, I'm not conservative in many cases except in cases of gun stupidity.

I'm usually independent with libertarian leanings.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Eonwe

[+and-then]

Let me guess. A rural area or south of the mason-dixon line?

The last time I glanced at a map, Connecticut is well north of there. But by all means let's hear your opinion of those less fortunate who dwell outside the land of Lincoln.

[MiskatonicGrad]

Are more gun laws the answer? how many gun laws were broken in conn. shooting? did they make a difference? they would have if they arrested the dumb-ass. it would have given the prosecutor more to charge him with that is it. no gun law ever saved a victim. how many criminals think " I'm gonna shoot him! uh-oh better not that would be against several laws." gun laws only restrict law-abiding citizens. you restrict the use of capital punishment and wonder why you have a rise in capital crimes? really? is someone out of touch with reality?

[Gummug]

Mind you, there is a few God given rules that pre-date the Bill of Rights - Thou shant kill/murder being one. Another, from a chap called Jesus being "if your enemy strikes your cheek, turn your head and offer your other cheek".

I think that sort of says "owning a device designed solely to destroy lives isn't au fait with the All Mighty".

I also remember that at one point he told those who didn't have a sword to go out and buy one.

[+and-then]

I also remember that at one point he told those who didn't have a sword to go out and buy one.

Quite true! He also mentioned burglars and thieves in a most unflattering way.

[Hasina]

Have y'all noticed both sides of the discussion have been labeled quite unflattering? Anti-gun 'propagandists', a 'culture of guns and violence', etc and so forth.

[+OverSword]

I guess we could label each other psychos and wussies.

[ninjadude]

No, the second amendment says no such thing - but its creators have argued for its purpose and made it clear its an anti-tyrannical deterrent.

and yet they didn't actually put that language in the constitution when they had the chance. Kind of defeats your argument.

[AsteroidX]

The gun enthusiasts dont care what you say.

[Drayno]

and yet they didn't actually put that language in the constitution when they had the chance. Kind of defeats your argument.

That's kind of like me farting in another room. I can tell you that I farted, but you would never have smelled it.

Does that change the fact I farted? No. Crude analogy, I know, but it gets my point across.

The founding fathers expressed their intent. I have nothing more to say.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I guess we could label each other psychos and wussies.

Don't forget the people who don't like in America chiming in "bloody troublemakers"

[ninjadude]

That's kind of like me farting in another room. I can tell you that I farted, but you would never have smelled it.

Does that change the fact I farted? No. Crude analogy, I know, but it gets my point across.

The founding fathers expressed their intent. I have nothing more to say.

if we were talking about bodily emmissions that might be interesting. And I would have no proof that you farted. So it would be useless information.

and again they did not feel strongly enough about their "intent" to actually include it in the document, which of course is the real basis of law and government.

[MiskatonicGrad]

and yet they didn't actually put that language in the constitution when they had the chance. Kind of defeats your argument.

ninja I don't think you want to get into an argument about the intent of the creators because some people around here want to talk seperation of church and state even though it is not mentioned in any of the founding documents.

Edited January 9, 2013 by MiskatonicGrad