Obama is trying to 'destroy us and every ounce of our freedoms' - NRA.

[QUOTE="Murderstyle75"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]Liberty is a necessity of man's life qua man. If the government does not recognize your unconditional right to defend yourself - from anything/anyone - then the government does not respect your right to live. Such a government is a violent and oppressive institution and is anti-life. Obama has made it clear again and again that he does not recognize the right that his constituencies have to live. This failure does not just manifest itself in his opposition to the 2nd amendment, but also in his pro-welfare, pro-inflation, pro-regulation, and pro-surveillance policies - in addition to his restriction protests of habeus corpus. A person is either fundamentally and unconditionally for or against freedom, and for or against life. Obama is the most violent and oppressive president since FDR and he is firmly anti-freedom and anti-life.Laihendi

Says the guy who routinely makes pronouncements on why basically everyone who isn't like him doesn't deserve rights.

Proposing legislation and pushing it in congress is most certainly doing something.

dercoo

Rights are not derived from pieces of paper. A constitution does not give rights - it recognizes them (or fails to). Rights are derived from a conscious mind and the inherent necessities to the existence of such a mind. Rights are derived from life within the realm of objective reality. An unconditional right to self-defense includes a right to the ownership of any weapon with a demonstrable purpose of self-defense.Laihendi

Keep dreaming, bud. Rights have never been inherent. They are manufactured, just like the guns. The universe has given us the gift of life, and it owes us nothing more, not even the protection of that gift.

Wonder how Laihendi will react when he finds out that habeus corpus can be constitutionally suspended. DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]Wonder how Laihendi will react when he finds out that habeus corpus can be constitutionally suspended. Aljosa23

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Murderstyle75"] However the constitution never gave you the right to defend yourself in a personal way. The second ammendment was put into place so you could form a militia and fight government tyranny. And ironically most people who support the right to bear arms, are against the kinds of weapons that would be needed to uphold the constution. These weapons would be of the same quantity and caliber as used by the federal agents invading your home. That's not a 9mm.frannkzappa

He's not wrong. The constitution does not guarantee that individuals have rights, it only makes those rights possible. Despite the protections in the consitution, black Americans did not have civil rights for almost two centuries after the founders declared that "all men are created equal".  Rights are granted by concensus, and constitutional protection is not a sufficient condition.

Liberty is a necessity of man's life qua man. If the government does not recognize your unconditional right to defend yourself - from anything/anyone - then the government does not respect your right to live. Such a government is a violent and oppressive institution and is anti-life. Obama has made it clear again and again that he does not recognize the right that his constituencies have to live. This failure does not just manifest itself in his opposition to the 2nd amendment, but also in his pro-welfare, pro-inflation, pro-regulation, and pro-surveillance policies - in addition to his restriction of protests and habeus corpus.

A person is either fundamentally and unconditionally for or against freedom, and for or against life. Obama is the most violent and oppressive president since FDR and he is firmly anti-freedom and anti-life.

Laihendi

Obama isn't fundamentally different than the last several Presidents. So do you just hate whoever is in charge?

Liberty is a necessity of man's life qua man. If the government does not recognize your unconditional right to defend yourself - from anything/anyone - then the government does not respect your right to live. Such a government is a violent and oppressive institution and is anti-life. Obama has made it clear again and again that he does not recognize the right that his constituencies have to live. This failure does not just manifest itself in his opposition to the 2nd amendment, but also in his pro-welfare, pro-inflation, pro-regulation, and pro-surveillance policies - in addition to his restriction of protests and habeus corpus.

A person is either fundamentally and unconditionally for or against freedom, and for or against life. Obama is the most violent and oppressive president since FDR and he is firmly anti-freedom and anti-life.

Laihendi

Can someone please explain to me what is it with americans and their guns? It seems has important to some of them as eating

He's not wrong. The constitution does not guarantee that individuals have rights, it only makes those rights possible. Despite the protections in the consitution, black Americans did not have civil rights for almost two centuries after the founders declared that "all men are created equal".  Rights are granted by concensus, and constitutional protection is not a sufficient condition.

PWSteal_Ldpinch

Can someone please explain to me what is it with americans and their guns? It seems has important to some of them as eating

da_illest101

Because there is no reason to not have them.

Pretty much lol. It's hilarious when naive fools think the NRA is doing things to help the average gunowner but they only exist to help gun manufacturers.

Aljosa23

To be fair, they are the only group fighting for my right to bear arms. At the national level, at least.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

Pretty much lol. It's hilarious when naive fools think the NRA is doing things to help the average gunowner but they only exist to help gun manufacturers.

airshocker

To be fair, they are the only group fighting for my right to bear arms. At the national level, at least.

Not doing a good job. I would only hope that you would get a group that's calm and peacable, and can educate about the use of guns and their uses by civilians that don't form radical militias and spew hate against the government.

[QUOTE="da_illest101"]

Can someone please explain to me what is it with americans and their guns? It seems has important to some of them as eating

frannkzappa

Because there is no reason to not have them.

Right, only you're not allowed to own an F16 fighter jet or an abrams tank are you? And I'm pretty sure most consider that to be common ****ing sense and not a gross violation of your liberty by a violent and oppressive government which disregards your right to life. No, most go with the 'common ****Ing sense' side of things. Much like it's common ****ing sense to do a quick check to make sure someone doesn't have a history of violent crime of mental instability before you hand over a military grade rifle with enough ammo to take out a small village. Your sacred freedom to bare arms is no more valid than an 8 year old's sacred freedom to attend school without getting shot and killed. Why should we protect your freedom over his?Ninja-Hippo

Must you be purposefullu false in every single gun debate thread? AR-15s aren't military-grade hardware.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Right, only you're not allowed to own an F16 fighter jet or an abrams tank are you? And I'm pretty sure most consider that to be common ****ing sense and not a gross violation of your liberty by a violent and oppressive government which disregards your right to life. No, most go with the 'common ****Ing sense' side of things. Much like it's common ****ing sense to do a quick check to make sure someone doesn't have a history of violent crime of mental instability before you hand over a military grade rifle with enough ammo to take out a small village. Your sacred freedom to bare arms is no more valid than an 8 year old's sacred freedom to attend school without getting shot and killed. Why should we protect your freedom over his?airshocker

Must you be purposefullu false in every single gun debate thread? AR-15s aren't military-grade hardware.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]An unconditional right to self-defense includes a right to the ownership of any weapon with a demonstrable purpose of self-defense.Ace6301

Obama has done things, but those things failed to bear fruit.dercoo

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="da_illest101"]

Can someone please explain to me what is it with americans and their guns? It seems has important to some of them as eating

Ninja-Hippo

Because there is no reason to not have them.

So if a small minority decides to do that i can't have guns? Most of that seems like a regulatory problem no reasons to ban.

So if a small minority decides to do that i can't have guns? Most of that seems like a regulatory problem no reasons to ban.

frannkzappa

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] You should probably buy me a rocket launcher with an under-slung chainsaw then. Its my right to defend myself you say, not pay to have access to it. The government should be giving us guns. Also healthcare if they respect our right to live. You are correct when you say that rights are not derived from a piece of paper. The ones you think are rights were derived by a bunch of dead guys who then wrote their ideas down on a piece of paper which grants you rights now. Had the founding fathers written down that you had a constitutional right to waffles on Sundays and Obama happened to prefer pancakes you would be on here defending waffles rather than the right to bear arms. [QUOTE="dercoo"]Obama has done things, but those things failed to bear fruit.Laihendi

That book is just one large peice of wrong. Maybe you should read Platos "Rebublic" a book of much greater intellectual value written by an incredable visionary. From this book not "Atlas Shrugged" is the ideal society described.

I think you're picking up on a pretty petty detail. For one, I didn't specify an AR-15 specifically or indeed any exact model of weapon, merely that it is legal for people to acquire military grade rifles that are incredibly destructive even if they have a history of mental illness. But it's weird that you'd specify the AR-15 anyway, which is so damn close to the M16 which is literally military grade. It's a semi-automatic rifle that would be welcome in any warzone. Dont act like it's for turkey shooting. Ninja-Hippo

No, it's actually a very important detail. Secondly, name a weapon that's military-grade and is sold to the public. As in, the weapon is also sold to the military with the same capabilities as it's civilian counter-part.

The fact is, like every single liberal before you, you're using these terms to scare people. Nothing more.

An AR-15 doesn't have burst or full-auto. That clearly makes it much different than a military M16 or M-4. To say otherwise is a flat-out lie.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]I think you're picking up on a pretty petty detail. For one, I didn't specify an AR-15 specifically or indeed any exact model of weapon, merely that it is legal for people to acquire military grade rifles that are incredibly destructive even if they have a history of mental illness. But it's weird that you'd specify the AR-15 anyway, which is so damn close to the M16 which is literally military grade. It's a semi-automatic rifle that would be welcome in any warzone. Dont act like it's for turkey shooting. airshocker

No, it's actually a very important detail. Secondly, name a weapon that's military-grade and is sold to the public. As in, the weapon is also sold to the military with the same capabilities as it's civilian counter-part.

The fact is, like every single liberal before you, you're using these terms to scare people. Nothing more.

An AR-15 doesn't have burst or full-auto. That clearly makes it much different than a military M16 or M-4. To say otherwise is a flat-out lie.

EDIT: Also lols at 'liberal'. You'd fit right in on the Sean Hannity show. Learn how to debate something reasonably.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] What you are saying is ignorant, as I only defend the constitution to the extent that it is compatible with Objectivism. If you want to see my philosophy of life written paper then look to Atlas Shrugged - not the constitution. And warlock you are once again making it clear that you do not understand my position on natural rights. As I have told you many times, the question of whether someone deserves rights is irrelevant. It is not a matter of whether someone should have rights, but a matter of whether they do. A person either does or does not have a right to live. If that right is violated by anyone - including the government - then the violator is a criminal, regardless of whether his actions were condoned by the law. A moral crime and a legal crime are two fundamentally different concepts, and you consistently fail to understand that. The law is irrelevant to morality. The law is irrelevant to ethics. The law is irrelevant to questions of what is right and wrong. Rights are not granted by anyone but are inherent to the existence of those who have them, so the question of whether anyone deserves rights is a meaningless question. Of course in about 2 weeks you will once again ignorantly claim that "Objectivists believe ________ don't deserve rights", but perhaps some day you will actually read the Objectivist literature and acquire an understanding of what you are attempting to talk about.Laihendi

I fail to see how being a ststist is a bad thing. Everything else you said describes Rand not Plato.

The fact that you have to resort to petty pedantry only shows you don't have a leg to stand on. "Original Ar-15 Sporter rifles were manufactured for civilian market by Colt since 1963. These were no more than semi-automatic versions of the original AR-15, M16 and M16A1 rifles." Is it currently used by the US military? Nope. Is it a soldier's weapon much more than a 'home defense' weapon? Hells yes.

 EDIT: Also lols at 'liberal'. You'd fit right in on the Sean Hannity show. Learn how to debate something reasonably.

Ninja-Hippo

The AR-15 is the civilian version of those rifles without the capability of them. That doesn't make them military-grade. For them to be military-grade they have to be the exact same thing. I'm sorry that you can't seem to figure out the difference for yourself. But rest assured I'll be here to correct you every time you stray.

If it was conservatives going after my gun rights like you liberals are, I'd call them out on it as well.

Debate reasonably? None of you people that are for gun control are reasonable to begin with. :lol:

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

The fact that you have to resort to petty pedantry only shows you don't have a leg to stand on. "Original Ar-15 Sporter rifles were manufactured for civilian market by Colt since 1963. These were no more than semi-automatic versions of the original AR-15, M16 and M16A1 rifles." Is it currently used by the US military? Nope. Is it a soldier's weapon much more than a 'home defense' weapon? Hells yes.

 EDIT: Also lols at 'liberal'. You'd fit right in on the Sean Hannity show. Learn how to debate something reasonably.

airshocker

The AR-15 is the civilian version of those rifles without the capability of them. That doesn't make them military-grade. For them to be military-grade they have to be the exact same thing. I'm sorry that you can't seem to figure out the difference for yourself. But rest assured I'll be here to correct you every time you stray.

If it was conservatives going after my gun rights like you liberals are, I'd call them out on it as well.

Debate reasonably? None of you people that are for gun control are reasonable to begin with. :lol:

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

Liberty is a necessity of man's life qua man. If the government does not recognize your unconditional right to defend yourself - from anything/anyone - then the government does not respect your right to live. Such a government is a violent and oppressive institution and is anti-life. Obama has made it clear again and again that he does not recognize the right that his constituencies have to live. This failure does not just manifest itself in his opposition to the 2nd amendment, but also in his pro-welfare, pro-inflation, pro-regulation, and pro-surveillance policies - in addition to his restriction of protests and habeus corpus.

A person is either fundamentally and unconditionally for or against freedom, and for or against life. Obama is the most violent and oppressive president since FDR and he is firmly anti-freedom and anti-life.

Ninja-Hippo

Also me having a right to self defense in no way contradicts the prospect of a child going to school without being shot. Self defense has absolutely nothing to do with murder. One person's right to live his life free from the threat of coercion does not in any way contradict another's same right. You are creating a false dichotomy.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]

Liberty is a necessity of man's life qua man. If the government does not recognize your unconditional right to defend yourself - from anything/anyone - then the government does not respect your right to live. Such a government is a violent and oppressive institution and is anti-life. Obama has made it clear again and again that he does not recognize the right that his constituencies have to live. This failure does not just manifest itself in his opposition to the 2nd amendment, but also in his pro-welfare, pro-inflation, pro-regulation, and pro-surveillance policies - in addition to his restriction of protests and habeus corpus.

A person is either fundamentally and unconditionally for or against freedom, and for or against life. Obama is the most violent and oppressive president since FDR and he is firmly anti-freedom and anti-life.

Laihendi

Also me having a right to self defense in no way contradicts the prospect of a child going to school without being shot. Self defense has absolutely nothing to do with murder. One person's right to live his life free from the threat of coercion does not in any way contradict another's same right. You are creating a false dichotomy.

Should I be allowed to grow my own strains of small-pox out of my bathroom turned lab? No. Terribly bad idea. It's a given. It's an axiom. It's true in and of itself. It does not require a debate. It does not require the examination of evidence. No you cannot **** around with smallpox in your neighborhood as a hobby. Common. ****ing sense.

Second, your right to own a rifle free of any background checks most certainly does overlap with that child's and everyone else's right to life. Your right to buy a deadly weapon free of any reasonable background checks is the same right which will allow a lunatic to do the same and very much infringe upon my right to life when he shoots me in the face.

It's not a matter of not understanding, I pointed out straight away that you'd picked up on the point but that it was petty and pedantic and the very purpose of pointing it out only goes to show how weak your arguments are. "An AR-15 isn't military GRADE, it's just military STYLE and essentially the same weapon but just semi-auto." Oh wow, you got me. You've changed my view on gun legislation. And heads up; I'm not a liberal. Elevate yourself out of Bill O'Reilly style debating. It's not a great place to be.Ninja-Hippo

Apparently it is since you're trying to put words in my mouth. It's not petty. Not when you're using those words to influence Congress and legislatures across the country.

The AR-15 isn't military-grade, fact. Does it look like military assault rifles? Yes. Does the AR-15 have the capability of military assault rifles? No. You're attempt to marginalize the differences is pathetic and dishonorable.

You are a liberal and this has nothing to do with any Fox News personality. I'm quite capable of calling you out on your bull-sh*t without them. I wouldn't try and convince you of anything. You aren't being reasonable on this issue.

the NRA is extemist, a minority, dying, and gun ownership is on the decline in the US.

Anything the NRA says is merely the dying breath of a collection of old farts and their fanatics.  The best thing we can do is ignore them and let nature handle them.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] I have, unfortunately, read it. At least you admit you base your views on a science fiction novel rather than reality. frannkzappa

I fail to see how being a ststist is a bad thing. Everything else you said describes Rand not Plato.

You are a liberal.

airshocker

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Atlas Shrugged is a philosophical exposition in the form of a novel. If you think it is just another science-fiction book then you completely missed the point of it. Perhaps you should reread Galt's speech, or study Rand's nonfictional essays if the presentation of the philosophical content in Galt's speech is too subtle for you to perceive. Zappa - Plato was a mystic and a statist. He was not a serious thinker by any means. I have read many of his works (including passages from his Republic, though I have not read the entire thing) and they are absurd. He makes up ludicrous premises with no basis of facts or evidence and then he uses them to create a convoluted system of philosophical circles. He made assumptions and guesses without even attempting to substantiate them and proceeded to treat them as irrefutable facts. He was ignorant.Laihendi

I fail to see how being a ststist is a bad thing. Everything else you said describes Rand not Plato.

About rand being a mystic. i don't know what else to call her as she never talked about the real world or facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Wn3Eey6dY

Nope. Wrong. Falso. Incorrect. Presumptuous. Ignorant. Petty. Sad. Childish. AR-15 is just an M16 with the burst-fire ability disabled. That's coming from a god-damned online gun store. No it is not military grade. You are correct. That was a mis-use of the technical term. It is extremely close, and the point originally being made was simply one that civilians (and the mentally unstable) can acquire weapons which would not be out of place in the hands of military personnel without anything in the way of background checks, which is an extremely idiotic state of affairs in what is allegedly an enlightened and civilised society. The technicalities of the term military grade have no bearing at all on the actual point being made, which is why it was a petty point to assert in the first place.Ninja-Hippo

Burst fire and automatic fire are two different things. So an AR-15 doesn't have two of the capabilities of military assault rifles(Semi, burst, full-auto). So no, I wouldn't agree that they are very similar.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Right, only you're not allowed to own an F16 fighter jet or an abrams tank are you? And I'm pretty sure most consider that to be common ****ing sense and not a gross violation of your liberty by a violent and oppressive government which disregards your right to life. No, most go with the 'common ****Ing sense' side of things. Much like it's common ****ing sense to do a quick check to make sure someone doesn't have a history of violent crime of mental instability before you hand over a military grade rifle with enough ammo to take out a small village. Your sacred freedom to bare arms is no more valid than an 8 year old's sacred freedom to attend school without getting shot and killed. Why should we protect your freedom over his?Ninja-Hippo

Also me having a right to self defense in no way contradicts the prospect of a child going to school without being shot. Self defense has absolutely nothing to do with murder. One person's right to live his life free from the threat of coercion does not in any way contradict another's same right. You are creating a false dichotomy.

Should I be allowed to grow my own strains of small-pox out of my bathroom turned lab? No. Terribly bad idea. It's a given. It's an axiom. It's true in and of itself. It does not require a debate. It does not require the examination of evidence. No you cannot **** around with smallpox in your neighborhood as a hobby. Common. ****ing sense.

Second, your right to own a rifle free of any background checks most certainly does overlap with that child's and everyone else's right to life. Your right to buy a deadly weapon free of any reasonable background checks is the same right which will allow a lunatic to do the same and very much infringe upon my right to life when he shoots me in the face.

the NRA is extemist, a minority, dying, and gun ownership is on the decline in the US.

Anything the NRA says is merely the dying breath of a collection of old farts and their fanatics. The best thing we can do is ignore them and let nature handle them.

mrbojangles25

Nicely said

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] "Common sense" is nothing more than a jumble of biases and assumptions. Anyone can call their positions "common **** sense". The claim does not mean anything if it cannot be supported with reason/logic/evidence/etc. Please let me know when you have an intelligent rebuttal to offer.

Also me having a right to self defense in no way contradicts the prospect of a child going to school without being shot. Self defense has absolutely nothing to do with murder. One person's right to live his life free from the threat of coercion does not in any way contradict another's same right. You are creating a false dichotomy.

Laihendi

Should I be allowed to grow my own strains of small-pox out of my bathroom turned lab? No. Terribly bad idea. It's a given. It's an axiom. It's true in and of itself. It does not require a debate. It does not require the examination of evidence. No you cannot **** around with smallpox in your neighborhood as a hobby. Common. ****ing sense.

Second, your right to own a rifle free of any background checks most certainly does overlap with that child's and everyone else's right to life. Your right to buy a deadly weapon free of any reasonable background checks is the same right which will allow a lunatic to do the same and very much infringe upon my right to life when he shoots me in the face.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Nope. Wrong. Falso. Incorrect. Presumptuous. Ignorant. Petty. Sad. Childish. AR-15 is just an M16 with the burst-fire ability disabled. That's coming from a god-damned online gun store. No it is not military grade. You are correct. That was a mis-use of the technical term. It is extremely close, and the point originally being made was simply one that civilians (and the mentally unstable) can acquire weapons which would not be out of place in the hands of military personnel without anything in the way of background checks, which is an extremely idiotic state of affairs in what is allegedly an enlightened and civilised society. The technicalities of the term military grade have no bearing at all on the actual point being made, which is why it was a petty point to assert in the first place.airshocker

Burst fire and automatic fire are two different things. So an AR-15 doesn't have two of the capabilities of military assault rifles(Semi, burst, full-auto). So no, I wouldn't agree that they are very similar.

EDIT: and apologies for double post.

Why do people bother arguing on the internet?