Thread: Here is why banning guns wont work

No. The Civil War was over secession and to preserve the union. Get your facts straight.

Originally Posted by Nemo

No. The Civil War was over secession and to preserve the union. Get your facts straight.

Lets not go to pretending the civil war was the only case of slavery to ever exist or that I might not be intelligent enough to know the real reasons behind the war.

Originally Posted by michael h

Actually I would say a vacuum is why those rights exist. Exactly why laws are made to acknowledge them. If acknowledgement of this vacuum didn't exist, then laws would not be created to protect them ... or in the case of slavery ... change to protect them.

No, you have it backwards. Rights don't exist in a vacuum, but only by law. There are no extra-legal rights. You can't have the one without the other.

Originally Posted by Nemo

No. The Civil War was over secession and to preserve the union. Get your facts straight.

Secession? Wasn't that done by the same body, the same political and legal body, that ratified the Constitution to begin with? Or are you saying a woman ONLY can say yes to sex and not no to sex? That the power of yes (ratification) is the power of no (secession or rescind ratification) but wait. Legally, these secessionists cannot be part of the US but remain part of Britain, right?

Time and again, you point to force not rights, in supporting your position of legal rights are all that exist.

So, what about the answers to my questions ...

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Is is your contention that human beings lacked the ability and freedom of expression prior to government? Is it your contention that man, in a state of nature, cannot acquire property (his labor mixed with natural material)?

Originally Posted by Nemo

No, you have it backwards. Rights don't exist in a vacuum, but only by law. There are no extra-legal rights. You can't have the one without the other.

I find laws to merely be the cause of most of mans suffering. Every man, woman, and child has the rights afforded them by their very existence. They come from the belief / vacuum ... of self preservation / self interest and can only be usurped by force and power. Be this religion delegating women to the role of 2nd rate humans through dogma, or a slave trader snatching a member of a family ... or governments making unjust laws all humans have the right of self preservation and self interest. Inherent human rights evolve from the vacuum of individual self interest ... not a bad thing ... a human thing, and an interest that must make sacrifices to societal interests.

I have to say inherent rights have got it right more then laws and societal mores. There is no comparison between the use of force and enslavement against the knowledge that you know you have rights and demand them in a society.

Originally Posted by Nemo

What about slaves. (A lot of good “natural rights” did them!) When did slaves get their rights?

They had them at birth. They were taken by force.

Originally Posted by Nemo

And, closer to home, what about women?

What about them?

Originally Posted by Nemo

What rights did women have when the Constitution was ratified?

Same as men.

Originally Posted by Nemo

Women were generally denied basic rights;

Not true at all. Nothing in the Constitution denies women rights in any way.

Originally Posted by Nemo

they could not vote,

Sure they could - as long as they met the requirements for voting set forth by the state in which they lived.

Originally Posted by Nemo

own property,

Yes they could - and did.

Originally Posted by Nemo

keep their own earnings,

Wrong again - they certainly could.

Originally Posted by Nemo

or even custody of their children.

Where did you get that fantasy from?

Originally Posted by Nemo

Did the founding fathers forget women when they drafted the Constitution?

Not at all. Again, please point to a single line specifically leaving women out of the equation.

Originally Posted by Nemo

When did women get their rights in the United States?

When they were born.

Originally Posted by Nemo

What was the source of those rights?

"....they are endowed by their creator...". Certainly you've heard that line?

Originally Posted by Nemo

Is there not even now a proposal for an amendment to the Constitution to guarantee equal rights under the law regardless of sex?

Nope. There was at one point, but the ERA failed and legitimately so. Ultimately it is unnecessary and would cause more problems then it would solve.

What you have regurgitated is frequently claimed by many modern liberals. The painful reality is, none of it is actually true.

Originally Posted by HonorsDaddy

What kind of man am I if my child knows I wont protect myself or my family?

Being there for your family also means doing the right thing.

You seem to think your mere presence is sufficient. I do not. If I'm teaching my daughter that the appropriate response to any show of force is to cower and give them what they want, then I am really saying "Sure little one, its OK to be raped. After all, if you give him what he wants, he will go away. Don't worry - it only hurts for a little while.".

Sorry - but to me, that is no kind of life. If you wont stand up for yourself, its pretty arrogant and selfish to expect others to stand up for you instead - and even more selfish to expect others to roll over just because you would.

Protecting your family from harm is one thing but risking your life for a few bits of paper and plastic that can be replaced within days seems like a potentially pointless waste of a life. Unique POV also didn't say anything about not defending herself just that he wouldn't be prepared to kill someone over a wallet which seems like a fair enough statement to me.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

Protecting your family from harm is one thing but risking your life for a few bits of paper and plastic that can be replaced within days seems like a potentially pointless waste of a life. Unique POV also didn't say anything about not defending herself just that he wouldn't be prepared to kill someone over a wallet which seems like a fair enough statement to me.

Hm...so you don't think someone forcibly taking money from my family is something worth defending? As far as risking by life for a few bits of paper, not to put too fine a point on it, but I do that every single day just going to work. Life is risk my friend.

You're welcome to your beliefs - I have my own. By allowing criminals to take what they wish without fear of retribution we essentially become slaves to anyone who wishes to take from us.

Whether or not the property can be replaced is NOT the point. You have no way of knowing the thief only wants property, and only the victim can legitimately decide the value of what is being stolen from him.


We can go back and forth on this all day long, but ultimately we hold irreconcileable viewpoints. You support a position of giving the criminal what he wants rather than risk defending it. I support a position where whats mine is mine and you steal at your own peril. There is no middle ground to these views.

What there is though, is understanding and acceptance of both view points. You want to hold yours - fine. Go for it. I wont stop you or force you to defend yourself or your property. The question is, are you going to be so accepting of MY view, or are you going to ask other men with weapons to force me to act according to your views?

The only way I would try and force my views on this is if I was to vote solely on that issue if I was somehow asked to vote in your district. As you say we are at polar opposites of this debate and I apologise if I offended you by by rather avid defence of my position but being from the UK where guns are just not an issue I find it hard to imagine living in a country full of them.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

The only way I would try and force my views on this is if I was to vote solely on that issue if I was somehow asked to vote in your district. As you say we are at polar opposites of this debate and I apologise if I offended you by by rather avid defence of my position but being from the UK where guns are just not an issue I find it hard to imagine living in a country full of them.

I have no problem with your defense of your position.

However, at least admit for the record that if you were able you would vote to force your views upon me.

As far as a nation having weapons or not, frankly, I would have figured the UK would have learned the first time it had to go begging for weapons...guess for some countries it takes a few times before it sinks in...

Yes, I would vote for guns to be banned but I don't see how that's any different from following any other law that you may or may not agree with?
What do you mean by begging for weapons as I'm unsure when we did that. We bought some weapons for WW2 but that's a completely different situation than whether or not guns are allowed in general circulation.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

Yes, I would vote for guns to be banned but I don't see how that's any different from following any other law that you may or may not agree with?

Because what you are saying is that you would support requiring others to use force to restrict the rights of those who disagree with you.

Ultimately that is what you are saying. You support men with guns taking guns away from those of us who don't think as you do. You are afraid of a specific item and because of that, you don't want anyone else having them.

Do you not see what I may have a problem with in regards to that? You are plainly advocating forcing your views upon others.

Note I have never said you must be armed or you must defend yourself or your property. I leave that choice completely up to you. You are obviously happy with preventing others from making their own choices.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

What do you mean by begging for weapons as I'm unsure when we did that. We bought some weapons for WW2 but that's a completely different situation than whether or not guns are allowed in general circulation.

The US sent your people a shit-ton of privately owned weapons so you could arm your home guard. We had to do that because you stupidly got rid of most of your privately owned weapons shortly after WWI. Yeah - you begged. I don't care how you spin it - when one nation must go to another and ask for assistance on something as simple as personal effects you are begging, plain and simple.