Obama bypassing congress to make sricter gun laws....

Not having read your little conversation, im assuming what he means by god given/natural rights in THIS situation, is that your right as a human being is to defend your life by whatever means if you are in danger.

my opinion on self defense, gun or not is, if someone breaks into your house, fuck them, their life now just became absolutely no concern. By taking the time to analyze whether or not they are a threat, whether or not they're armed, and what their intent is. you are putting your life at a huge risk. i mean, if the guys on his knees with his hands over his head, back turned, then yeah, you dont really have an excuse to unload a clip into his head. So i mean this within reason. but basically, unless its very obvious the intruder does not intend to hurt you, you should be able to use whatever force necessary to stop them, anything less is risking your own life, and there is no way you should be expected to risk your life to save someone threatening yours.

anyway good luck trying to shoot them in the arm or leg in an effort to injure him in the few seconds you might have to stop him.
 
yeah, probably. but i would say that is very, very secondary to your natural instinct to live. you're not going to be sitting there thinking "well, as a human, i have a right to defend myself if someone or something threatens my physical well being. and it looks like that's what's happening here, so i guess i better do that." it's going to be more like: "oh shit a bear's coming at me, i don't want to die, better do something"

and thanks, man! appreciate the support.
 
i said i would defend myself against the bear because of my innate desire to live. you said that was not enough. you said it also had to do with rights. what exactly do you mean by this?

i'm saying my instinct to live is, above all else, the reason i would defend myself. not because of any natural rights i have. you seemed to suggest this was incorrect, or not a good enough explanation. are you saying my rights are as ingrained as my instincts? or something like that?
 
that thought process of thinking over your rights an analyzing the situation and level of danger, just wouldnt happen. "oh shit a bears coming at me" would be much close to your thoughts/instinct.

when your life in in danger, you go into full survival mode, fuck everything, i want to live. there wouldnt be a thought process of... "hmm, is this guy a threat? i wonder what his intention is, should i just run and hope i dont get stabbed? or maybe just injure him? what does the law say i can do?"it would be more like "oh fuck! intruder!" and he would be shout a split second later, and thats what you should do. that what i believe our "god given" or human right is.

if its later found out that the intruder was unarmed and just wanted to steal some rolex's, well, dont rob someones house, and you wont get shot, easy solution! theres no reason the homeowner should be punished for putting his live over the life of a criminal breaking into his house.
 
thats...exactly what i'm saying? the main reason i defend myself in that situation is because my life is being threatened and i want to live. not because, as a human, i have the natural right of self-defense.

but don't you evaluate whether or not someone is a threat before you go into survival mode? don't you go into survival mode after you have determined that you are in a situation that makes that necessary?
 
yeah i guess im saying its a right because its a natural and very necessary instinct, it should be a right because the only thing that should be going on in your head is how to survive this situation, not what the law says i can and cant do.

and i dont instantly go into survival mode, if i heard noises at night i wouldnt automatically assume somebody wants to murder me, and go into kill mode, id think 99% of people would assess the situation first. but in the moment where your life may be at risk and action may need to be taken in a split second. you dont have time to assess. but if your caught that off guard your probably dead anyway.
 
you're literally asking what do rights have to do with your life......and you want me to answer that? you have no hope. :(

nobody asked what your main reason for defending yourself is. haven't you put it together yet? it's both, kid lol.
 
i agree. i never once said self-defense wasn't a right.

that's a pretty hasty assumption to make, don't you think?
 
but i guess you're right. in the moment it's a hard thing not to assume. that the person wants to kill you as opposed to just rob you.
 
that wasn't what i was asking at all. i was asking you to explain why my answer that i would defend myself because of my innate instinct to keep me alive wasn't good enough. sorry if that wasn't clear.

and is it both? i feel like you instinct to live overpowers everything else by so much that it becomes the only answer to the question. but i guess there's no way to definitively say if i'm right or if you're right.
 
I am happily infringing on your right to own an assault rifle. Why does any civilian need to own a weapon that is designed to kill a large number of people quickly and efficiently. I don't care if you are a criminal or not, it doesnt make sense.
 
Why is the government allowed to own assault rifles domestically? Should they be allowed to kill a large number of people quickly and efficiently?

Do you not remember Kent State?
 
I'm not foliwing what the media fold me. I've done alot of research from both sides o the argument and formulated an opinion on my own. I don't think assault rifles should be legal to own. I think gun regulations should be stricter. I do not beleive that all guns should be illegal.
 
Why do people need to own cars that go in excess of 200mph? One of those could spin out, begin to roll, and squash a group of kindergarteners with an inexperienced driver behind the wheel. The answer is, it's fun! This is AMERICA; We like to go fast and blow shit up! Would you not feel like a badass blowing watermelons up with an assault rifle?
 
In a perfect world, if there were no weapons there wouldn't be war. But the weapons are there and arnt going away. I really despise our government right now, but at least the military has been heavily trained to use these weapons. Do you think civilians should have access to tanks because the government does?
 
The government shouldn't have an absolute monopoly on force. We have no means of coercion of a corrupt and broken government if we can't fight. It's that simple.
 
would you care explaining to me what qualifies a gun as an assult rifle? and what it takes to acquire, or even have access to one? can you tell me how many homicides occur per year in the US with a rifle? how about how many deaths by stabbing? or with a club/bat, etc..? being beaten?

how about how many gun related deaths per year are gang/criminal/felon related vs. other cases? now how many of those are with a rifle?

and the hard part, tell me how banning what you call "assult" rifles, would have an effect on the gun related death count.
 
Don't worry. I get both sides of the argument. Blowing shit up is fun. But I live right near newtown amd drove through it the day after the shooting to go skiing. It really spooked me. I used to be all for people owning any gun. But I don't know. Its eirie seeing the green ribbons tied on trees all around town now. My opinions biased i guess.
 
cool, so just like everyone else, your basing your opinion off emotions. BTW, did the shooter even use an "assult" rifle?
 
Ok. Fine. Emotion is not something To base an opinion off of. I guess the way I see it is that if stricter gun laws prevent just one of these rare shootings than its worth it. Amd to everyone who says its punishing the mahority for the minority, is that the same response you had when stricter airplane security laws were put in place after 9/11? "Most people arnt going to hijack a plane and crash it into a building, so we shouldn't punish the majority for what the minority did. Terrorists could get access to a plane anyway, wether it be through another country with less strict securit regulations or another means. So increasing security in American airports won't change anything". Makes alot of sense eh?
 
id like to see how banning "assult" rifles would stop anyone from committing a school shooting, this guy killed 26 people without one. hell columbine happened in the middle of an "assult" weapons ban. I highly doubt it would have any effect on whether or not a shooting occurs or not.

and even if it somehow did. i still disagree with you. I dont think you should take away peoples 2nd amendment rights in order to MAYBE prevent a shooting committed by a criminal. there are certain risks associated with freedom and there are risks associated with a lack of freedom.

the airport argument is interesting, but i dont think its very comparable, you arent really taking away peoples rights anymore than before by making security more strict/effective. you had to go through metal detectors before, you still had to after, but now you gotta take your shoes off. darn. with airport security you went from invading someones privacy/property, to doing it a little bit more, and your using a privately owned plane and they can deny you service if you dont go through security. its a very different situation.

actually, i wouldnt have minded if they didnt up security. its hardly any more effective anyways.
 
I haven't completely read all nine pages of posts so I'm not sure if it has been asked yet, but...Does it scare anyone else that the Government is trying to take away one of our undeniable rights (2nd Amendment)? If they are able to do this, what's next? No more due process?
 
I said if weapons didnt exist then there wouldnt be war. It wouldnt be possible for there to be wars on the scale of WWII without any weapon. Even swords, bows, etc. I then went on to say how thats impossible and could never happen...
 
Im not advocating taking away rights. Im advocating regulation. I beleive in the second ammendment and the right to bear arms. I also beleive we have a living constitution. When the second ammendment was made, it pertained to muzzle loaded rifles that were only accurate at a fairly short range. The simple fact is, we live in a different time, and adjustments need to be made accordingly.
 
ok, thank you, wars on the scale of WWII, your probably right.

unfortunately humans are smart and know how to make things.
 
To defend themselves against multiple attackers plain and simple. Like stated earlier why does the government need to have a monopoly on Assault Rifles? Take hurricane Katrina for example, there was no police force to protect everyone looting homes and stores for food and supplies. During times of anarchy you are on your own to defend yourself and "Assault Weapons" allow you to defend against multiple attackers who want what you have. Law abiding citizens never are the ones causing the violent crime. By legislating against Assault Weapons, all you are doing is disarming the responsible gun owners, and those who are going to cause mass shootings are going to have them legal or not. For the 100th time there was an Assault Weapons ban from 1994-2004 and that did NOTHING to lower gun related crimes. Why bother going to such extravagant efforts to fight against a gun that is used in 3% of all gun crimes? A gun is lethal no matter whether it holds 20 bullets or 5.
 
taking away "assult" rifles would be taking away a right. it would be taking away a right to keep and bear arms.

I think the 2nd ammendment absolutely applies today regardless of what kind of weapons they had back then. the people need to have power over the government, and the government should fear the people (unfortunately this isnt the case anymore and its now the other way around)

I think the people should have access to whatever the military has access to. obviously in a well organized way. a militia should have access to what a branch of the military has access to, and an individual should have access to what a soldier has access to.

ie an individual would have access to what an individual foot soldier in any military branch has access to. but he would have to go through the proper training, and it would only be used within the militia itself, not outside of any militia activity. basically the militia would be a military branch but run by the people.

i know its far fetched, and people say we dont have a need for a militia. regardless, we should have the ability to form one, AND have the same power a government military branch has.

you can already get silencers, fully automatic weapons, etc.. with the proper permit, submitting an application and a bunch of other pain in the ass stuff. im not a fan of whats required to obtain one, but im glad we can, and im glad it takes more than just walking into a gun store, waiting 45 minutes for your background check to clear, and walking out.

 
alright. i guess since you won't, or can't, answer my question, we're done here. probably for the best anyway.
 
who says they're seriously trying to ban guns completely? regulating something and banning it are two different things, just so you know.

and why should it be an undeniable right just because it says so in the constitution. slavery was made legal and black people counted as worth 3/5 of white people by those same documents. you don't see people arguing we should have count black votes be worth 3/5 of white votes because it says so in the constitution, do you?
 
There is no other reason to ban a gun that is involved in such a low amount of gun crime other than to start moving in the direction of a complete gun ban which is what those such as Diane Feinstein would like to see happen. Hypothetically speaking if Assault Weapons were taken away from civilians, and mass shootings continued to happen through the use of shotguns and handguns, I can guarantee there is going to be a huge push to ban those as well. Guns are lethal no matter whether they are a shotgun rifle or a handgun, they all can kill mass amounts of people and banning them doesn't keep us any safer from violent crime.

Already was posted but it is a great video proving that just because you remove guns from the hands of civilians, people will find a way to kill other people guns or not.

/images/flash_video_placeholder.png
 
thanks for posting this again.

another point to make, people like to compare us to the UK, like the UK is some super peaceful friendly country. having been there for long periods of time on multiple occasions, its not. there is a TON of crime that goes on, just like those stats prove. shit while i was staying with my friend there, he left his garage door unlocked and when we came back 3hrs later his garage was robbed and tons of his shit broken. he moved to Atlanta of all places a couple months ago, and says its amazing how friendly it is, and yes, thats Atlanta..

not that we dont have our own problems. but id rather risk being one of the couple thousand out of 300 million non gang related homocides, than have to live somewhere with constant crime and be at a MUCH higher risk for being a victim of crime there.

our gun crime is pretty well confined within big cities with gangs and career criminals, which is where 80% of gun crime comes from. Thats where the problem is, you take that out of the equation and for easily being the most gun loving country in the world, we would look pretty damn good.

If the government really wants to lower gun crime, look at the gangs and the illegal gun trade thats fueling them. they really seem to be just avoiding the real problem, and punishing the law abiding citizen by enacting restrictions that will not address the problem. but hey, it looks good, were taking "action", thats all that matters right?

 
what about...trying to stop that type of gun crime? and just because a very small number of politicians want to ban all guns doesn't mean it's going to happen. you guys need to relax. no one is seriously trying to get rid of the second amendment.
 
you seriously want me to answer "what do rights have to do with your life?".................

yeah, i'm not answering b/c i can't.......haha don't flatter yourself, little johnny.
 
I'm telling you I seriously think this kid doesn't have any reading comprehension. I Just gave up I'm pretty sure he's a troll.
 
like when someone asks you a question about an armed intruder and you respond under the impression that the conversation is about an unarmed thief, right? go back to your bridge.
 
"i'm saying my instinct to live is, above all else, the reason i would defend myself. not because of any natural rights i have. you seemed to suggest this was incorrect, or not a good enough explanation. are you saying my rights are as ingrained as my instincts? or something like that?"

but, again, let's just drop it.
 
You mean the same thread where I showed you statistics on how many robbers Bring guns to home invasions. I then also explained to you that any crime you commit with the Gun in america automatically adds an extra five years to your sentence. Which is why most people who Rob Homes don't bring Guns with them to rob a house. There there to take your things not to shoot people. So yes I thought we were talking about in an unarmed robber Who is there to take your thing's And yes I would've used a knife or bat And my 3 years of mma fighting experience before I used a gun against someone unarmed. If we were talking about someone who came there to kill you it would be a different story. Tell me if you didn't have that one post that you keep taking out of context would you even have an argument against me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top