Single man militia, meet Bradley fighting vehicleThe Supreme Court supports Omniarchy, in regards to a one man militia. If you pass all the federal guidelines and rules to owning a firearm. Then, you are a single man militia that happens to be well-enough regulated.
So none of those rights extend any further than the animal can enforce themselves. And presumably they are whatever the animal thinks they are?Yeah, they do, the right to exist, not be caged, not be forced to do what they don't want to do. They're imbued with those rights by virtue of the fact they can defend themselves and fight for their own sentience. Any who impinges upon that right suffers the wrath of that animal, to the best they can defend themselves. In all likelihood, nowadays they'll lose. Not surprisingly, because we have weapons and they do not, want me to explain how this relates to the US citizen mentality now?
He had a small typo, but it's obvious what he meant. You're against a "sin tax" because it restricts rights (because as an extension it would make guns less affordable and more difficult to access). He then asks, well, if guns are already too expensive for some people, aren't they already having their natural rights violated? Who's responsibility should it be to fulfill them?You lost me.
Does a right to self defence include
any and every available method?
A reasonable assessment, but bear in mind (because I know where you're going with this), mankind's ability to enforce their own rights includes their minds, what they know, and what mankind has developed. That includes firearms, arms on fire, and everything in between, as well as anything not yet developed.So none of those rights extend any further than the animal can enforce themselves. And presumably they are whatever the animal thinks they are?
Self defense doesn't generally include the death of innocents. If, in some hypothetical scenario, you fired a weapon to defend yourself which caused the death of someone behind that person, you'd be responsible for that death. You wouldn't however, be responsible for the death of the person threatening your life.Nice question. Very thought provoking.
My answer is no. For instance, you can't use methods that will destroy all other life on Earth to save yourself. What if you use a method that kills 2 innocent people to save yourself? What if you have to harm dozens (who don't die) in order to save your own life? Luckily most uses of guns for self defense in America don't actually harm innocents, so your question is more of a really cool thought experiment on some edge cases of self defense and less of actually meaningful real life application.
but you are proving the point for us. You are basically saying there is nothing to stop people who want guns from getting them, or from stopping mass killings at all, because...life finds a way.
He had a small typo, but it's obvious what he meant. You're against a "sin tax" because it restricts rights (because as an extension it would make guns less affordable and more difficult to access). He then asks, well, if guns are already too expensive for some people, aren't they already having their natural rights violated? Who's responsibility should it be to fulfill them?
Self defense doesn't generally include the death of innocents.
Having said that, if you destroyed all life on Earth other than yourself, there'd be nobody to argue with you, so you still win in that scenario.
A reasonable assessment, but bear in mind (because I know where you're going with this), mankind's ability to enforce their own rights includes their minds, what they know, and what mankind has developed. That includes firearms, arms on fire, and everything in between, as well as anything not yet developed.
Probably, our courts tend to be very, very specific on what self defense actually includes however. If you roasted someone with a flamethrower, as long as it was in self-defense, you're a-ok.He possibly thinks that 2A supporters haven't thought that one through and therefore regulations should be more strict than 2A supporters may currently agree with.
Well, I personally believe morals are relative, but I accept that I'm in the minority on that one.Not morally.
That's the point of the bill of rights/Constitution, it's to identify things that, to the individual, are rights, but have the very real capacity to be impinged by a Government due to their overwhelming power. Bear in mind this was coming hot on the heels on the independence of the US from British rule which for all intents and purposes was the ruler of the world at that time. Virtually every right identified in the Constitution was stated precisely because they were things impinged by the British govt, or likely to be impinged by the British govt, hence why they were identified.Not where I was going. The animal is choosing and enforcing its own "rights". It's hard to look at those as rights when they are only backed up by the individual.
Never heard of him, so I have no idea how many "followers" he has. Are we talking about a thousand people or a million? Is there some evidence that all of them accept the faked sandy hook story?Alex Jones and all his followers... the same Alex Jones who has a directly line to Trump because he's a fan of his.
Never heard of him, so I have no idea how many "followers" he has. Are we talking about a thousand people or a million?
i have a real hard time believe that, but assuming it's true, you might want to educate yourself considering that Jones and Trump have personally spoken many times since the election.
Never heard of him, so I have no idea how many "followers" he has. Are we talking about a thousand people or a million? Is there some evidence that all of them accept the faked sandy hook story?
Quite honestly, this sounds like hyperbole to me. A large part of the bigotry that overcomes any group trying to espouse their own views over those of another group is vilification and using the lunatic fringe as the median. The basic dishonesty is accepted as a necessary part of confirming one group's ideals as superior to the other. It's not surprising that it always ends up with violence perpetrated under the guise of necessity. "Those people have to be stopped by any means necessary", is the sentence used to send the weak minded to the penitentiary, or their graves.
Yeah. So they are rights that are chosen and protected by government then?That's the point of the bill of rights/Constitution, it's to identify things that, to the individual, are rights, but have the very real capacity to be impinged by a Government due to their overwhelming power. Bear in mind this was coming hot on the heels on the independence of the US from British rule which for all intents and purposes was the ruler of the world at that time. Virtually every right identified in the Constitution was stated precisely because they were things impinged by the British govt, or likely to be impinged by the British govt, hence why they were identified.
Yup, lots of things are just very, very dangerous toys until someone uses them to evil intent. I refuse to look at guns in some other different light, especially as they kill us significantly less than other things no one really cares about.
The more I think about it the more I'm a little pissed the guy on stage took off without saying anything to the crowd. I'm all for not having people killed by stampede, but still. He had the ability to get the word out fast, at once. How much did that delay cost everyone I wonder...
or drone, good luck with either of those scenarios.Single man militia, meet Bradley fighting vehicle
No, they were chosen by the founding fathers, guaranteed by the Constitution, and protected by the ability of the citizenry to protect it, primarily through the capacity to enforce their will in the defense of liberty via arms.Yeah. So they are rights that are chosen and protected by government then?
None of that is saying "natural" or "God given".No, they were chosen by the founding fathers, guaranteed by the Constitution, and protected by the ability of the citizenry to protect it, primarily through the capacity to enforce their will in the defense of liberty via arms.
I know a group of Americans where that concept didn't work out so well and the government and citizen militias ran roughshod over them.No, they were chosen by the founding fathers, guaranteed by the Constitution, and protected by the ability of the citizenry to protect it, primarily through the capacity to enforce their will in the defense of liberty via arms.