I dont go to gunfights

problem solved,,,

Neither does it preclude them.



…and common sense dictates that any reasonable force is allowed for self-defence. The most reasonable force against a gun…is another (preferably more potent) gun.



FALSE. Everyone has a right to reasonable defence against aggression (to defend themselves or others), to property, and to he means to defend said property. As I noted above, the most reasonable defence against a gun is another gun, so it is unreasonable (and therefore unlawful) to deny any rational citizen his right to defend himself against guns; it would be a breach of the public trust and an act of criminal negligence committed by any government that would do so (you have to give them away, or allow them to be taken from you).

Try to remember, your rights don't come from your constitution. The constitution only enumerates SOME of the rights you are born with; it doesn't give them to you.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"…This would be true even if it wasn't even mentioned in the constitution.

Volluntarily. Does any unarmed victim?

we have a natural right to OWN a gun?

really, so we have a natural right to own knives too?

so why must we pay for them I wonder?

,,,,anyway


not everyone should have a gun, even if it makes yet another (natural/constituional) right not an ABSOLUTE right,,,

and not every gun is 'reasonable' for non military to use,,,,

nope, just like pedestrians dont jump in front of drunk drivers

but **** happens

I hope those pedestrians dont cowar away in their homes in an attempt to avoid that type of hitch

and I hope not everyone walks around with an arsenal of life taking tools to avoid the type of hitch that happens relatively as quickly and unexpectedly,,,

Yup…You have the natural right to own guns, knives & a whole buncha other stuff too…It is called the right to property. Guns are also covered under the right to defend and protect property.

You don't have to pay for property like guns & knives, you can always make them at no cost with your own hands (but most people find it more convenient to buy them).

do you make them from air

or must you BUY the materials?

perhaps IM wrong, dont know, I just NEVER Heard in any class or school of thought that 'property' is a right

You don't have to buy the materials, they can be obtained free as resources from mother nature (the common), but mining your own metals for guns & knives isn't exactly easy.



You obviously went to the wrong classes and never took a philosophy course in natural law. As a historical note, the right to the pursuit of happiness was originally intended to say the right "to property."

wow, property is the pursuit of happiness

this really is a sad world

and hasnt 'nature' always existed?

how can anything that doesnt happen in NATURE (that is , hasnt always been a part of mans environment) be a natural right?

did the cavemen have access to guns and bullets? wouldnt 'natural' rights apply to them too?

Since cavemen did not know what guns and bullets were, that is a ridiculous question.

The point is....

Why does any government have a right to decide what free people can have or not have, own or not own?

Remember, possession is 9/10's of the law.

It was only when government invented laws and lawyers and contracts that people began to squabble over property.

The right by necessity to reasonable means of self defence has existed since the dawn of time. All the recent advent of guns did was up the ante on what constitutes a reasonable means of self defence. It is not reasonable to suppose a stone-age club is very effective against somebody with a gun even ten feet away.

you really believe this?

wow

'squabbling' comes in many forms, today its courtrooms

before that, gunfights and wars and pillaging

,,yeah, the good old days...

its perhaps semantics to some

but that is true a right to 'reasonable defense' is not the same as a right to a gun

anymore than a right to 'procreate' is not the same as a right to engage in pedophilia

I'm afraid that in this miserable excuse for a civilization it is the same. Having a gun to protect yourself is your right. If you choose to waive it that is your privilege. To deny that right to others would be an infringement of their rights and an act of criminal negligence.

What you decide for yourself is your right. What you decide for others is tyranny.

so lets repeal pedophile laws shall we?

lets repeal speed limits too

your rights end where my nose begins, and you having a weapon that is capable of taking out me and ten others around me in half a minute is not a 'reasonable' mode of 'self defense'

"I think the truth must now be obvious that our people are too happy at home to enter into regular service, and that we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies; and that in doing this all must be marshaled, classed by their ages, and every service ascribed to its competent class."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1814.

Why? In the days since 27 innocents, most of them children, were murdered in Sandy Hook Elementary School, all have been asking that question, trying to make sense of an ultimately senseless act. Simpler minds insisted that anyone who has ever argued in favor of anything but the absolute abolition of firearms was complicit in the murder of innocent children, while more astute thinkers tried to look past their indignation and heartbreak in search of sensible policy alternatives. Not surprisingly, they often ended up looking to Israel, a nation, went the argument, whose citizens are heavily armed yet rarely use their guns to shoot each other.

=-=-=

Read about
Why Israel Has No Newtowns

It’s the Jewish state’s gun culture, not its laws, that prevents mass shootings like the one in Connecticut
By Liel Leibovitz|December 17, 2012 10:35 AM

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/119408/why-israel-has-no-newtowns

You are crossing into some really dangerous territory by stating that others "rights" end at the tip of your nose. If their constitutional rights are taken away by your opinion, it is just as easy for your constitutional rights to be taken away by their opinion. Perhaps they many think that you should pay back all the money the government has provided you on the backs of their paychecks. Perhaps they may think that you should be forced to work without pay until such tax money is repaid. The concept of taking constitutional rights away because you don't understand their purpose works both ways.

You are not a judge, in any way, of what makes a constitutional right reasonable.

My having a gun might not be self defence against you; you aren't even armed, but it is a perfectly reasonable defence against an armed attacker, and if I had my way, I'd carry a loaded pistol at all times.

It wouldn't matter if you repealed ALL the laws. For that matter, it wouldn't matter if you burned every law book and case precedent in the country; The law will always be the law. It existed before we learned writing and will exist after all the writing has turned to dust.

The concepts of law and justice are inscribed in the human heart, not in a library or a legislature.

well, I actually have/will pay back all the money provided me,, the whopping 3500 per year that 'assistance' provides


will probably be 'paid back' through taxes of my own somewhere in my fifty plus years of working,,,


the common myth here is that any right is an 'absolute' right, constitutional or otherwise


the right to free speech is taken away if you yell fire and cause people harm as a result

the right to a speedy trial is taken away if you are declared mentally insufficient to stand trial

likewise, there is common sense value to putting certain limitations on peoples 'right' to have weapons

like if they are unstable in some way emotionally, or if they have violent pasts,,,or if the weapon in question can do mass damage in minimum time with minimum effort