ForumGarden

halfway;1415071 wrote: Ties into the "over served" arguments.

Another justification of nanny-state minded individuals that cannot bring themselves to hold people accountable for their actions.

I got drunk, I got in my car, I caused a horrific incident, yet we need to blame the bar for over-serving me.

wow......


Except in this instance they're going for prohibition.

Accountable;1415076 wrote: Except in this instance they're going for prohibition.


Nanny-state.

Accountable;1414226 wrote: A right is a right, we still have our rights so long as we still have some semblance of the Rule of Law.


The "right" to kill thousands of ourselves per year by guns was "granted" by an amendment to the Constitution. Amendments, wisely, can be repealed. Therefore, so can the "right" to shoot people with guns. All within the law.

Not "granted". The Constitution has no power to grant The People anything.

A bit of ForumGarden history:

anastrophe;391922 wrote: I started to write this in another thread and realized it belonged separately. herewith:



Anastrophe wrote in another thread:

The rights that are codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights

forgive me for quoting myself and responding to myself. but i want to stress my wording above. it's one of the things in popular discourse that drives me batty- people are CONSTANTLY saying "because i have a right guaranteed by the constitution!".



NO!



the constitution does NOT guarantee ANY RIGHTS. none!



the constitution codifies - it acknowledges - the rights we already hold, inherently. i realize the distinction may seem awfully hair-splitting, but it is not. when one suggests that the constitution guarantees their rights, they're effectively suggesting that the government, through this document, is giving us certain rights which we may then enjoy. the fact is, however, that the rights listed are rights we hold regardless of the existence of the constitution. every copy of the constitution could be burned, and every reference to it obliterated in textbooks, and discussion of it could be banned - but it would not take away from us the fact that the rights are ours; they are not 'given' to us by the government or by the document.



furthermore, one does harm to one's greater freedom by the suggestion. that's why, further into the bill of rights and not often considered, is the tenth amendment, an extremely important one in this regard:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

think about what that's saying. it's saying that if a human right is not codified in the consitution it does NOT mean that the right doesn't exist. the constitution does not state that we have a right to breathe. if we suggest that we only have the rights that are listed in the constitution, then we're suggesting the government would have the power to forcibly stop us from breathing. or to require everyone to wear clown shoes. or whatever.



no doubt, having the constitution and bill of rights to point to, to say - 'look, see? the founders felt this was important, you can't take that right away' is a very, VERY good thing. but in writing it down, they were not concommitantly placing limits on what rights we have. they were codifying the most important rights that governments tend to chip away at.



okay, that's my rant on codification versus gaurantees.

Accountable;1415202 wrote: Not "granted". The Constitution has no power to grant The People anything.

A bit of ForumGarden history:


Sorry, I have to disagree. You have no inherent rights, you have only those rights that the society you live in grants you.

You have no right to life, health happiness or whatever.

Take the example given of the right to breathe - we have no such right. Try calling out to the world that you have the right to breathe when stuck ten feet underwater and you'll see how much of an inherent right you have.

Bryn Mawr;1415219 wrote: Sorry, I have to disagree. You have no inherent rights, you have only those rights that the society you live in grants you.

You have no right to life, health happiness or whatever.

Take the example given of the right to breathe - we have no such right. Try calling out to the world that you have the right to breathe when stuck ten feet underwater and you'll see how much of an inherent right you have.


OK, there to no more right to self defense than the right to breath.

tude dog;1415327 wrote: Would anybody dispute the right of self defene?i wouldn't dispute the right to it, though i might dispute some justifications for it.

Bryn Mawr;1415219 wrote: Sorry, I have to disagree. You have no inherent rights, you have only those rights that the society you live in grants you.

You have no right to life, health happiness or whatever.

Take the example given of the right to breathe - we have no such right. Try calling out to the world that you have the right to breathe when stuck ten feet underwater and you'll see how much of an inherent right you have.


OK, I think I got it.

We walk around, many of us thinking of this or that right.

G-D himself could grant me a right to own, carry, what ever a firearm.

All that is meaningless.

Actually, I have pointed this out to others who just don't get it.

Praise be G-d, the 2nd Amendment or whoever.

Save your breath.

Bryn Mawr;1415219 wrote: Sorry, I have to disagree. You have no inherent rights, you have only those rights that the society you live in grants you.

You have no right to life, health happiness or whatever.

Take the example given of the right to breathe - we have no such right. Try calling out to the world that you have the right to breathe when stuck ten feet underwater and you'll see how much of an inherent right you have.


Sorry I have to disagree. Just because the society you live in only grants you certain rights doesn't mean you don't have the rights only that you may have to fight to make your point. Someone more powerful telling me I have no right doesn't make him right.

third verse all things bright and beautiful



The rich man in his castle,

The poor man at his gate,

He made them, high or lowly,

And ordered their estate.


If people still believed you had no inherent rights because god ordered it so we would all still be up **** creek.

The constitution only has power when the people are prepared to stand up and fight. It's the idea that' has the power not the words.

I like the way you think gmc. Did you mention you were a red diaper baby? Or did I get that wrong?

Ahso!;1415329 wrote: i wouldn't dispute the right to it, though i might dispute some justifications for it.
No justification needed for a right.

I finally caught this before clicking away. I've seen this at the top of the screen probably 8 or 10 times but while I was clicking to leave.



I don't recall President Obama ever calling to ban weapons. I don't think the firearm issue was even on his radar before Newtown.

Accountable;1415348 wrote: I finally caught this before clicking away. I've seen this at the top of the screen probably 8 or 10 times but while I was clicking to leave.



I don't recall President Obama ever calling to ban weapons. I don't think the firearm issue was even on his radar before Newtown.That's right. As I understand it Obama was active in expanding gun rights. Anti gun advocates gave him an "F" on the issue. most gun owners don't know that though because most don't bother reading the news and believe what the gun lobby tells them.

most gun owners don't know that though because most don't bother reading the news and believe what the gun lobby tells them.
Flagrant generalization! Or--link, please.

AnneBoleyn;1415355 wrote: Flagrant generalization! Or--link, please.you mean to tell me that you didn't know gun advocates were claiming Obama was coming for their guns? Where do you think they got that from?

AnneBoleyn;1415355 wrote: Flagrant generalization! Or--link, please.Obama is coming for our guns - Dogpile Web Search

Accountable;1415347 wrote: No justification needed for a right.Justification necessary to act on it in a civilized society.

AnneBoleyn;1415341 wrote: I like the way you think gmc. Did you mention you were a red diaper baby? Or did I get that wrong?


You got it wrong. What on earth is red diaper baby?

gmc;1415401 wrote: You got it wrong. What on earth is red diaper baby?


Derrrrrrrrrrr



Red diaper baby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accountable;1415348 wrote: I finally caught this before clicking away. I've seen this at the top of the screen probably 8 or 10 times but while I was clicking to leave.



I don't recall President Obama ever calling to ban weapons. I don't think the firearm issue was even on his radar before Newtown.Ahso!;1415350 wrote: That's right. As I understand it Obama was active in expanding gun rights. Anti gun advocates gave him an "F" on the issue. most gun owners don't know that though because most don't bother reading the news and believe what the gun lobby tells them.AnneBoleyn;1415355 wrote: Flagrant generalization! Or--link, please.Ahso!;1415357 wrote: you mean to tell me that you didn't know gun advocates were claiming Obama was coming for their guns? Where do you think they got that from?Ahso!;1415358 wrote: Obama is coming for our guns - Dogpile Web Search


You know, I don't mind being asked to back up what i write and going to the trouble of searching for the requested information, but it's only right that people who request that information acknowledge the person's effort as well as the respect they've been shown by that effort. It isn't necessary to acquiescence to the findings of proof, but it sure does go a long way in being thought of as an appreciative individual. One may not be shown such respect in future requests.

Ahso!;1415004 wrote: I should have said " by the use of...". But I think most people get that - they're not dumb enough to think I'm claiming guns are leading themselves around killing. Though, at times they do malfunction. No?


I hate it when that happens.

Pull trigger, gun fires and stovepipes. Shell comes back right in the face. Slide doesn't return to battery. Magazine fails to feed. Fail to eject.

Just to name a few, all detected and correctable, fixed in minutes. Annoying problems but only dangerous to the user if needed for self defense.

tude dog;1415327 wrote: OK, there to no more right to self defense than the right to breath.


Neat sidestep.

The statement I was responding to was that the second amendment is not granting a right to bear arms but was codifying an inherent right. We have no such inherent right - nature does not give us such a right, it is a right granted purely by the society you exist in.

gmc;1415339 wrote: Sorry I have to disagree. Just because the society you live in only grants you certain rights doesn't mean you don't have the rights only that you may have to fight to make your point. Someone more powerful telling me I have no right doesn't make him right.

third verse all things bright and beautiful



If people still believed you had no inherent rights because god ordered it so we would all still be up **** creek.

The constitution only has power when the people are prepared to stand up and fight. It's the idea that' has the power not the words.


In what way does nature have a built in right for people to own and bear arms? To whom can you apply to uphold that right?

Accountable;1415347 wrote: No justification needed for a right.


I totally agree, if the constitution grants you a right then you do no have to justify exercising it.

Self-defence is, however, more complex in that it is bounded by such phrases as "reasonable force" and you need to justify that your response actually constituted self-defence.

Ahso!;1415412 wrote: You know, I don't mind being asked to back up what i write and going to the trouble of searching for the requested information, but it's only right that people who request that information acknowledge the person's effort as well as the respect they've been shown by that effort. It isn't necessary to acquiescence to the findings of proof, but it sure does go a long way in being thought of as an appreciative individual. One may not be shown such respect in future requests.


I honestly & politely think you need a mental health provider.

oscar;1415410 wrote: Derrrrrrrrrrr



Red diaper baby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


How weird. Americans do like to put people in to boxes don't they.

You're not in a box. It's just a fun expression of the old left. Myself, I wore a pink one.

tude dog;1415457 wrote: I hate it when that happens.

Pull trigger, gun fires and stovepipes. Shell comes back right in the face. Slide doesn't return to battery. Magazine fails to feed. Fail to eject.

Just to name a few, all detected and correctable, fixed in minutes. Annoying problems but only dangerous to the user if needed for self defense.


Don't pull trigger, gun gets jarred and fires - solution, back off the trigger mechanism but, by then, someone may be dead.

Ahso!;1415350 wrote: That's right. As I understand it Obama was active in expanding gun rights. Anti gun advocates gave him an "F" on the issue. most gun owners don't know that though because most don't bother reading the news and believe what the gun lobby tells them.


There are all kinds of activists for all kinds of causes claiming this that or the other. All kinds of lobbies claiming this that and the other.

You mention gun advocates, F rating. I believe that. I just wonder who you are talking about.You make a claim most gun owners don't read the news, as if as a group we are any different than anyone else.

What news are you reading that you say " Obama was active in expanding gun rights" ???

You mean

Obama Defends Bush Rule on Permitting Guns in National Parks

Who's rights is he defending?

Fast And Furious Lawsuit Draws Justice Department Calls For Dismissal

Executive privilege. First step in a cover up.

Considering the constant tom tom drum beat against the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms, it is no wonder that many of us who prize and exercise this right are a little skittish with this president.

Four years ago Obummer had a lot he wanted to accomplish and had no time for guns. Well, times have changed. Months ago his front man, Diane Feinstein announced her plans for a new and improved law to take rifles away from everybody.

So now the lame duck president president can show his true colors,

President Obama on Sunday said he would make gun control a priority in his new term, pledging to put his “full weight” behind passing new restrictions on firearms in 2013.

“I'm going to be putting forward a package and I'm going to be putting my full weight behind it,” Obama said in an interview aired on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I'm going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.”

Never let a tragedy go to waste.

AnneBoleyn;1415466 wrote: You're not in a box. It's just a fun expression of the old left. Myself, I wore a pink one.


I'm scots - in american terms we are probably all rabid communists.

Bryn Mawr;1415467 wrote: Don't pull trigger, gun gets jarred and fires - solution, back off the trigger mechanism but, by then, someone may be dead.


Hmm, me thinks gun technology has advanced a lot since the 19th century.

Two years ago I bought my first black power gun, a reproduction 1860 Army revolver. It has six chambers in the cylinder. It is advised to only load five and leave the empty under the hammer. A simple solution fit for the times.

Fast forward to the 20th century. Modern guns are designed to not fire unless the trigger is pressed. That is all there is to it.

Think about it. If guns were as unreliable as some folk claim, no arms manufacturer could survive the law suites, not to mention nobody would buy their POS.

tude dog;1415475 wrote: Hmm, me thinks gun technology has advanced a lot since the 19th century.

Two years ago I bought my first black power gun, a reproduction 1860 Army revolver. It has six chambers in the cylinder. It is advised to only load five and leave the empty under the hammer. A simple solution fit for the times.

Fast forward to the 20th century. Modern guns are designed to not fire unless the trigger is pressed. That is all there is to it.

Think about it. If guns were as unreliable as some folk claim, no arms manufacturer could survive the law suites, not to mention nobody would buy their POS.


Are you claiming that it is impossible for the trigger mechanism of a modern gun to wear and / or to be adjusted too fine and for the gun to be jolted into firing without a deliberate pressing of the trigger?

gmc;1415474 wrote: I'm scots - in american terms we are probably all rabid communists.


Nah. You're all like this:



:wah:

Bryn Mawr;1415476 wrote: Are you claiming that it is impossible for the trigger mechanism of a modern gun to wear and / or to be adjusted too fine and for the gun to be jolted into firing without a deliberate pressing of the trigger?


I have a gun sitting in front of me, a 1911 semi automatic. It has three safety on it. Fully loaded, cocked and locked, ready to go. I would bet you any amount of money if I pulled the trigger, nothing will happen. All the same, to prove the point I would not put it to my head. In fact, I will not point it at the floor as having to explain to Mrs. Dog can be a worse punishment than having my head blown apart.

tude dog;1415494 wrote: I have a gun sitting in front of me, a 1911 semi automatic. It has three safety on it. Fully loaded, cocked and locked, ready to go. I would bet you any amount of money if I pulled the trigger, nothing will happen. All the same, to prove the point I would not put it to my head. In fact, I will not point it at the floor as having to explain to Mrs. Dog can be a worse punishment than having my head blown apart.


A word to the wise. Using Mrs. & Dog in the same name can cause a worse punishment than having your head blown apart. Of course, you know her better than I. :wah:

I have more of a fear with 4 teenage giggling girls texting while driving and "accidentally" using their car as a weapon that "malfunctioned".

* Note, boys can be substituted to show no gender profiling.

AnneBoleyn;1415504 wrote: A word to the wise. Using Mrs. & Dog in the same name can cause a worse punishment than having your head blown apart. Of course, you know her better than I. :wah:


LOL

No worries here.

tude dog;1415475 wrote: Hmm, me thinks gun technology has advanced a lot since the 19th century.

Two years ago I bought my first black power gun, a reproduction 1860 Army revolver. It has six chambers in the cylinder. It is advised to only load five and leave the empty under the hammer. A simple solution fit for the times.

Fast forward to the 20th century. Modern guns are designed to not fire unless the trigger is pressed. That is all there is to it.

Think about it. If guns were as unreliable as some folk claim, no arms manufacturer could survive the law suites, not to mention nobody would buy their POS.They might be designed that way, but that doesn't mean they always behave as they are designed to. I've got credible proof for you anytime you're ready to compromise.

195,000 dead each year due to medical malpractice.

And that is not the biggest conversation we are having?

Shame....if we care so much....

halfway;1415538 wrote: 195,000 dead each year due to medical malpractice.

And that is not the biggest conversation we are having?

Shame....if we care so much....But that's being taken care of. Eventual nationalization of the medical system means that no one will be able to claim malpractice. No claim, no malpractice. Problem solved.

Accountable;1415543 wrote: But that's being taken care of. Eventual nationalization of the medical system means that no one will be able to claim malpractice. No claim, no malpractice. Problem solved.


I like the way you think accountable. Almost at the Utopia...just a few more restrictions...almost there...it's gonna we wonderful.....

Yet the nature of man remains as it has since the beginning.....

Absolutely! The more flippant the better. Peas in a pod.

tude dog;1415494 wrote: I have a gun sitting in front of me, a 1911 semi automatic. It has three safety on it. Fully loaded, cocked and locked, ready to go. I would bet you any amount of money if I pulled the trigger, nothing will happen. All the same, to prove the point I would not put it to my head. In fact, I will not point it at the floor as having to explain to Mrs. Dog can be a worse punishment than having my head blown apart.


But we were discussing guns where the owner had been negligent enough to leave the safety catch off so I'll repeat my question, maybe you'll answer it?

Bryn Mawr;1415476 wrote: Are you claiming that it is impossible for the trigger mechanism of a modern gun to wear and / or to be adjusted too fine and for the gun to be jolted into firing without a deliberate pressing of the trigger?

halfway;1415538 wrote: 195,000 dead each year due to medical malpractice.

And that is not the biggest conversation we are having?

Shame....if we care so much....


No, Accountable started this thread to discuss guns so that's what we're discussing - maybe you'd like to start one to cover the medical malpractice problem?

Accountable;1415543 wrote: But that's being taken care of. Eventual nationalization of the medical system means that no one will be able to claim malpractice. No claim, no malpractice. Problem solved.


Sadly, that's not the way it works with the NHS - plenty of claims for malpractice if nothing like the death toll.

I see this whole debate as similar to the drunk driving debate of the '80s. Everyone said there was nothing that could be done about it. Some even claimed it was their "right" to drunk drive since alcohol had been around for thousands of years. But slowly, thanks to a series of high profile wrecks in almost every state, people came around to the notion that drinking and driving was bad for society, especially when the population was in the hundreds of millions..

The same thing will happen to guns. It will become less and less socially acceptable as more and more massacres happen. Eventually, it will be phased out. Of course, 30,000 Americans per year will die from gunfire in the meantime...

Is this the USA contribution to population control ?

Bruv;1415609 wrote: Is this the USA contribution to population control ?Funny thing, in some cases some, not realizing what they're thinking, see it as social Darwinism - a selection process. And it is, but not a healthy one.

Saint_;1415606 wrote: I see this whole debate as similar to the drunk driving debate of the '80s. Everyone said there was nothing that could be done about it. Some even claimed it was their "right" to drunk drive since alcohol had been around for thousands of years. But slowly, thanks to a series of high profile wrecks in almost every state, people came around to the notion that drinking and driving was bad for society, especially when the population was in the hundreds of millions..

The same thing will happen to guns. It will become less and less socially acceptable as more and more massacres happen. Eventually, it will be phased out. Of course, 30,000 Americans will die from gunfire a year will in the meantime...you and I may not live to see it, but I agree with you.

Bruv;1415609 wrote: Is this the USA contribution to population control ?


Yes. We have found Weapons of Mass Destruction and it is Us.