Quantcast
Obama Admin Caves: ATF Halts Assault on Inalienable Rights

Forums - Politics Discussion - Obama Admin Caves: ATF Halts Assault on Inalienable Rights

SocialistSlayer said:
Mr Khan said:

It wasn't me this time, honest. (last time it was).

But i will say that calling it a human right like that creates a hysterical tone that invites uncivil discourse.

To be fair, i would say much the same about a lot of things. Rights have different baskets they go into, and to have a reasoned discussion on them, it's easier to categorize them rather than coming out swinging about how something is a violation of human liberty and dignity or something.

thanks for the leveled response. 

though i would like to change the title to natural or inalienable rights. if that alright

I would argue that the right to purchase 5.56 isn't a natural or inalienable right...



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

Around the Network
Normchacho said:
SocialistSlayer said:

thanks for the leveled response. 

though i would like to change the title to natural or inalienable rights. if that alright

I would argue that the right to purchase 5.56 isn't a natural or inalienable right...

and i would argue buying tool (ammo for weapons) to protect your life liberity and property is a natural right



 

Well at least America is still willing to fight for her guns. Sadly our other freedoms are still being trampled on.



SocialistSlayer said:
Normchacho said:

I would argue that the right to purchase 5.56 isn't a natural or inalienable right...

and i would argue buying tool (ammo for weapons) to protect your life liberity and property is a natural right


But you would still have that ability if they banned 5.56...there are countless different caliburs and types of rounds.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

No offense, but I just really get sick of the "gun rights" argument.



Around the Network

As mentioned above, I changed the title.

I did this because the supposed 'right' to purchase ammunition for high caliber rifles fundamentally does not meet any agreed or reasonably arguable requirements to be classed as a 'human' right.

Further, it is my belief, which fortunately is well borne out by the research available to us, that this is not a 'right' in any sense of the word. Certainly they are not natural rights, as those are universal and inalienable, which is of course entirely inapplicable in the case of guns in general, let alone specific ammunition.

Constitutional lawyers will argue back and forth as to whether or not 'legal' rights apply under the US Constitution for you to own and operate a variety of single purpose weapons of war. What is clear is that it takes a willful and nonsensical distortion of the intention of the Constitution of the United States to pretend that 'the right to bear arms,' when written, was ever intended to support the slaughter of over 10,000 innocent Americans every year, which is pretty much all it does now.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

The 2nd amendment was written in a different time. Things have changed a lot since then. They could not have foreseen how things would look today.
Gun control in the US is a discussion that needs to be ongoing.

The 'human rights' argument sounds pretty inappropriate though.



starcraft said:
As mentioned above, I changed the title.

I did this because the supposed 'right' to purchase ammunition for high caliber rifles fundamentally does not meet any agreed or reasonably arguable requirements to be classed as a 'human' right.

Further, it is my belief, which fortunately is well borne out by the research available to us, that this is not a 'right' in any sense of the word. Certainly they are not natural rights, as those are universal and inalienable, which is of course entirely inapplicable in the case of guns in general, let alone specific ammunition.

Constitutional lawyers will argue back and forth as to whether or not 'legal' rights apply under the US Constitution for you to own and operate a variety of single purpose weapons of war. What is clear is that it takes a willful and nonsensical distortion of the intention of the Constitution of the United States to pretend that 'the right to bear arms,' when written, was ever intended to support the slaughter of over 10,000 innocent Americans every year, which is pretty much all it does now.

the 556 rounds is no where close to a "large caliber" by definition it is intermediate..

and your last paragraph is completely nonsensicle and flat out idiotic, noone is claiming the 2A protects or supports the slaughter of 10,000 people. though though 10,000 are hardly "innocent" people, over half of the murders are criminals. its mostly criminals killing criminals.



 

SocialistSlayer said:
starcraft said:
As mentioned above, I changed the title.

I did this because the supposed 'right' to purchase ammunition for high caliber rifles fundamentally does not meet any agreed or reasonably arguable requirements to be classed as a 'human' right.

Further, it is my belief, which fortunately is well borne out by the research available to us, that this is not a 'right' in any sense of the word. Certainly they are not natural rights, as those are universal and inalienable, which is of course entirely inapplicable in the case of guns in general, let alone specific ammunition.

Constitutional lawyers will argue back and forth as to whether or not 'legal' rights apply under the US Constitution for you to own and operate a variety of single purpose weapons of war. What is clear is that it takes a willful and nonsensical distortion of the intention of the Constitution of the United States to pretend that 'the right to bear arms,' when written, was ever intended to support the slaughter of over 10,000 innocent Americans every year, which is pretty much all it does now.

the 556 rounds is no where close to a "large caliber" by definition it is intermediate..

and your last paragraph is completely nonsensicle and flat out idiotic, noone is claiming the 2A protects or supports the slaughter of 10,000 people. though though 10,000 are hardly "innocent" people, over half of the murders are criminals. its mostly criminals killing criminals.

The bolded is one of the main reasons I avoid engaging in this debate on forums more often than note.

One side presents evidence, the other promotes unsubstantiated myths to try and defend the indefensible.

Hell, even if you were right, the lack of morality associated with apparently not giving a shit because supposedly someone that got shot was a criminal (of some kind????) is astounding.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

starcraft said:
SocialistSlayer said:

the 556 rounds is no where close to a "large caliber" by definition it is intermediate..

and your last paragraph is completely nonsensicle and flat out idiotic, noone is claiming the 2A protects or supports the slaughter of 10,000 people. though though 10,000 are hardly "innocent" people, over half of the murders are criminals. its mostly criminals killing criminals.

The bolded is one of the main reasons I avoid engaging in this debate on forums more often than note.

One side presents evidence, the other promotes unsubstantiated myths to try and defend the indefensible.

Hell, even if you were right, the lack of morality associated with apparently not giving a shit because supposedly someone that got shot was a criminal (of some kind????) is astounding.

you said, innocent, they arent. its that simple. also you were creating a straw man, claiming people argue that the 2A protects 10,000 murders.

furthermore, they arent myths they are cold hard facts, something hoplophobes dont have on their side.

  • 71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.
  • 64% had been convicted of a crime.
  • Each had an average of 11 prior arrests.
  • 63% of victims have criminal histories and 73% of the time they know their assailant
most of those 10,000 murders are from gangs killing rival gangs/thugs. crime on crime. does that fact dismiss those murders? no, but it puts them into perspective. 

then add to that, guns are used defensively 1-2.5+million times a year in the US.
and add that 5.56 isnt large caliber, nor are rifles used in much crime, let alone rifles chambered in that caliber.
you are just flat out wrong on all counts. but it is hard defending a point of view which is countrary to facts.