And now we have Tuesday’s mass shooting,

archives said:
Here we go with fallacy bullshit again

Every time “nightingale” is caught short in one of his posts he immediately goes to his Google list of fallacies and imports one he himself doesn’t understand

Why? If owning a gun is an inherent right and prohibiting such interferes with one’s “freedom,” why wouldn’t murder fall under the same considerations, where in the natural world does it say murder isn’t equally a right
Click to expand...

again, you show that you clearly do not understand freedom, at least as the framers/founders considered it. the founders viewed freedom as being able to do anything you wanted, as long as it didn't interfere with the rights of others. you view freedom as dangerous because it allows people to kill hundreds at random............absurdity in the extreme
 
Yakuda said:
Yes. But you don't have a right to own a car. That was the statement you made. You have aright to what you can buy that's not the same as saying you have a right to own a car.
Click to expand...

if a car is considered property, and people have a RIGHT to own property, how can you then say nobody has a RIGHT to own a car?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
if a car is considered property, and people have a RIGHT to own property, how can you then say nobody has a RIGHT to own a car?
Click to expand...

Again not what I said. Man you people are something. You can own what you like. Can you drive your property (car) on property that is not yours?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
if a car is considered property, and people have a RIGHT to own property, how can you then say nobody has a RIGHT to own a car?
Click to expand...

Exactly and if a gun is nothing more than a tool, much like a car, then nobody would have a right to own a gun. I think owning a gun is a right, but should be expected to be well regulated.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
because it never needed one..........the definition of a well regulated militia at the time of ratification was accepted as the people of each state knowing how to shoot and fight as a group, if necessary.
Click to expand...

Really, who said that? And if such is the case, why would it be needed today when each State today has an official “well regulated militia?”
 
Yakuda said:
Again not what I said. Man you people are something. You can own what you like. Can you drive your property (car) on property that is not yours?
Click to expand...

you're making the implication that an accepted UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO TRAVEL can somehow be restricted by the means of travel...........and yes, you have said several times here that you don't believe OWNING a car is a right.......if you misspoke, it's understandable.
 
Into the Night said:
Cherry picking. Argument of the stone fallacy. Go look up the source.
Click to expand...

That one is funny, “nightingale” now claims if you only compare the US against other developed nations you are cherry-picking, that any discussion regarding guns in America should compare us with conditions in nations as Afghanistan or Nigeria, otherwise, it is “stone fallacy”
 
Mr.Badguy said:
Exactly and if a gun is nothing more than a tool, much like a car, then nobody would have a right to own a gun. I think owning a gun is a right, but should be expected to be well regulated.
Click to expand...

despite that it shall not be infringed and that the government doesn't get to define the limits of their own power..............cite your source for that
 
archives said:
Really, who said that? And if such is the case, why would it be needed today when each State today has an official “well regulated militia?”
Click to expand...

I pasted several quotes from founding fathers that say just that. The founders weren't stupid when they wrote/ratified the Constitution. They knew that a standing army was a bane to liberty. Now, there was a compromise in regards to that right to keep and bear because of their knowledge and experience of requiring a standing army..........The states are not allowed to have their own troops via the Constitution, without the consent of congress, which would mean that they are then a standing army, thus the 2nd Amendment to guarantee that the PEOPLE would always have their own arms that the federal government had no power over.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
despite that it shall not be infringed and that the government doesn't get to define the limits of their own power..............cite your source for that
Click to expand...

Again what's a little more infringement to you if you're already tolerating the infringement that exists now? If regulating guns means your rights are being infringed why aren't you fighting back already?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you're making the implication that an accepted UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO TRAVEL can somehow be restricted by the means of travel...........and yes, you have said several times here that you don't believe OWNING a car is a right.......if you misspoke, it's understandable.
Click to expand...

Can you drive your car on someone else's property?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top