U.S Massacre Thread

[Grinning Dragon]

The UN is the absolute last group you want being arbiter of human rights. just ask Saudi Arabia how well that works out.

And who should be the arbitrator of human rights? The USA, a nation that may have committed war crimes in Iraq and Syria.

The United States already has a document that lists what are human rights and enumerated them, that is all that needs to apply to the US.

[Tarsonis]

The UN is the absolute last group you want being arbiter of human rights. just ask Saudi Arabia how well that works out.

And who should be the arbitrator of human rights? The USA, a nation that may have committed war crimes in Iraq and Syria.

I mean we pretty much run the UN so we kind of already are no? The UN is not an objective body, just because they don't recognize something as a right doesn't mean it isn't.


You're being quite defensive for no reason.

Strong disagree on the second

Name three reasons why they are human rights

Do people not have a right to self defense?

[Islamic Essarn]

And who should be the arbitrator of human rights? The USA, a nation that may have committed war crimes in Iraq and Syria.

I mean we pretty much run the UN so we kind of already are no? The UN is not an objective body, just because they don't recognize something as a right doesn't mean it isn't.


You're being quite defensive for no reason.

Name three reasons why they are human rights

Do people not have a right to self defense?

Yes, guns are not part of that. Think of gun control laws as like seatbelt laws but for guns.

[Islamic Essarn]

And who should be the arbitrator of human rights? The USA, a nation that may have committed war crimes in Iraq and Syria.

The United States already has a document that lists what are human rights and enumerated them, that is all that needs to apply to the US.

I hate to brake this to you, but the constitution does’t have all rights in it.

[Tarsonis]

I mean we pretty much run the UN so we kind of already are no? The UN is not an objective body, just because they don't recognize something as a right doesn't mean it isn't.


You're being quite defensive for no reason.


Do people not have a right to self defense?

Yes, guns are not part of that. Think of gun control laws as like seatbelt laws but for guns.

Driving a car is hardly a right, self defense absolutely is. Not a good comparison.

so why aren't guns a part of self defense? surely the right to self defense also implies the right to means of self defense, no?

[Grinning Dragon]

The United States already has a document that lists what are human rights and enumerated them, that is all that needs to apply to the US.

I hate to brake this to you, but the constitution does’t have all rights in it.

Pretty sure that is why the 9th Amendment was drafted and ratified.

[Tarsonis]

The United States already has a document that lists what are human rights and enumerated them, that is all that needs to apply to the US.

I hate to brake this to you, but the constitution does’t have all rights in it.

neither does the UNs proclamation on human rights.

[Islamic Essarn]

Yes, guns are not part of that. Think of gun control laws as like seatbelt laws but for guns.

Driving a car is hardly a right, self defense absolutely is. Not a good comparison.

so why aren't guns a part of self defense? surely the right to self defense also implies the right to means of self defense, no?

On your first point : driving a car is’t, but going where ever you like is.

[Tarsonis]

Driving a car is hardly a right, self defense absolutely is. Not a good comparison.

so why aren't guns a part of self defense? surely the right to self defense also implies the right to means of self defense, no?

On your first point : driving a car is’t, but going where ever you like is.

Hardly. Canada might have an issue with me just driving across their border without a passport and/or visa. thr secret service might take issue with me waltzing into the oval office.

But let's follow the logic. Travel is the right and driving the means, fair enough. Cars kill more people than guns. So why aren't we banning cars and forcing people to use horse and buggy?

Because in a free society legal is the default. You don't need reasons for things to be legal, you need reasons for why they're illegal. Your argument "because you don't need one." fails utterly against this test. It's not the governments place, or yours for that matter, to tell me what I need.

[Adamede]

Or you invest in better mental healthcare without violating the rights of many

First of all : invest in both and you can reduce gun violence the most.
Second of all : gun rights are not human rights.

Not accoridng to the US Constitution.

[Adamede]

I mean we pretty much run the UN so we kind of already are no? The UN is not an objective body, just because they don't recognize something as a right doesn't mean it isn't.


You're being quite defensive for no reason.


Do people not have a right to self defense?

Yes, guns are not part of that. Think of gun control laws as like seatbelt laws but for guns.

Guns are proabbly the best way for one to defend themselves no matter the attacker.

[Paddy O Fernature]

I mean we pretty much run the UN so we kind of already are no? The UN is not an objective body, just because they don't recognize something as a right doesn't mean it isn't.


You're being quite defensive for no reason.


Do people not have a right to self defense?

Yes, guns are not part of that. Think of gun control laws as like seatbelt laws but for guns.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news to you, but firearms most certainly are a valid form of self defense, not to mention a very popular choice at that for numerous reasons.

I hate to brake this to you, but the constitution does’t have all rights in it.

Pretty sure that is why the 9th Amendment was drafted and ratified.

I do believe you are correct.

On your first point : driving a car is’t, but going where ever you like is.

Hardly. Canada might have an issue with me just driving across their border without a passport and/or visa. thr secret service might take issue with me waltzing into the oval office.

But let's follow the logic. Travel is the right and driving the means, fair enough. Cars kill more people than guns. So why aren't we banning cars and forcing people to use horse and buggy?

Because in a free society legal is the default. You don't need reasons for things to be legal, you need reasons for why they're illegal. Your argument "because you don't need one." fails utterly against this test. It's not the governments place, or yours for that matter, to tell me what I need.

Well said.

[Thermodolia]

Strong disagree on the second

Show the class where the guns are stored.

Ah yes the organization where China has permanent veto, dictatorships run rampant, the peacekeeping forces rape a lot, and KSA heads the human rights organization.

[Thermodolia]

The United States already has a document that lists what are human rights and enumerated them, that is all that needs to apply to the US.

I hate to brake this to you, but the constitution does’t have all rights in it.

That’s why there’s a bit about the enumerated rights not being the only rights

[Gun Manufacturers]

what's next, ban buildings over 8 ft in height?

Ahh yes, the slippery slope argument rears it’s ugly head again.
No, because an average of 8 building collapses happen every year, compared with more 250 mass shooting in 2022. And also no, because we need to have buildings over 8 feet high, but we don’t need to have guns.

I need firearms. How else am I going to hear that satisfying sound generated from a bullet punching a neat hole in a paper target, ringing a steel target with a bullet, or watching a clay pigeon explode from #9 shot? And if I get good enough, I might eventually get my hunting license, and maybe putting some meat on the smoker/table, or in the fridge/freezer.

Or you invest in better mental healthcare without violating the rights of many

First of all : invest in both and you can reduce gun violence the most.
Second of all : gun rights are not human rights.

Maybe not human rights, but here in America, they ARE a civil right.

[Washington Resistance Army]

https://abc7ny.com/supreme-court-gun-case-guns-rights-concealed-carry/11990123/

Supreme Court strikes down New York conceal carry gun law

Very good. NY's may issue system was blatantly rigged against poor and colored people, glad to see it being thrown in the trash where it belongs.

[Don Flippers]

First of all : invest in both and you can reduce gun violence the most.
Second of all : gun rights are not human rights.

Maybe not human rights, but here in America, they ARE a civil right.

In Alaska, you can still carry firearms on planes. In The US state of Alaska, firearms are still necessary due to the presence of dangerous wildlife. A federal-level blanket ban on assault weapons is going to result in the avoidable deaths of an ethnic minorities in Alaska who depend on assault weapons to fight larger wildlife.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Maybe not human rights, but here in America, they ARE a civil right.

In Alaska, you can still carry firearms on planes. In The US state of Alaska, firearms are still necessary due to the presence of dangerous wildlife. A federal-level blanket ban on assault weapons is going to result in the avoidable deaths of an ethnic minorities in Alaska who depend on assault weapons to fight larger wildlife.

Alaska doesn't have exclusive rights to dangerous wildlife in the United States. Also, one more time for the people in the back, "Assault Weapons" is a made up term coined by AG's to describe common semi-automatic rifles.

[Necroghastia]

In Alaska, you can still carry firearms on planes. In The US state of Alaska, firearms are still necessary due to the presence of dangerous wildlife. A federal-level blanket ban on assault weapons is going to result in the avoidable deaths of an ethnic minorities in Alaska who depend on assault weapons to fight larger wildlife.

Alaska doesn't have exclusive rights to dangerous wildlife in the United States. Also, one more time for the people in the back, "Assault Weapons" is a made up term coined by AG's to describe common semi-automatic rifles.

Literally every word or phrase is a made up term coined to describe something or other.

[The Black Forrest]

https://abc7ny.com/supreme-court-gun-case-guns-rights-concealed-carry/11990123/

Supreme Court strikes down New York conceal carry gun law

Very good. NY's may issue system was blatantly rigged against poor and colored people, glad to see it being thrown in the trash where it belongs.

Curiosity. Have any numbers on that?

[The Two Jerseys]

Very good. NY's may issue system was blatantly rigged against poor and colored people, glad to see it being thrown in the trash where it belongs.

Curiosity. Have any numbers on that?

Don't know if there's actual numbers, but it's basically common knowledge among people who live in may-issue states that "may issue" really means "only people with money and/or political connections will get a permit".

[The Black Forrest]

Curiosity. Have any numbers on that?

Don't know if there's actual numbers, but it's basically common knowledge among people who live in may-issue states that "may issue" really means "only people with money and/or political connections will get a permit".

That philosophy is pretty much the backbone of America.

Those with money and/or political connections live in one America and the rest of us live in the other America.

[Heloin]

Also, one more time for the people in the back, "Assault Weapons" is a made up term coined by AG's to describe common semi-automatic rifles.

You’re going to be really upset when you learn that’s how most words and classifications work.

[The Emerald Legion]

And who should be the arbitrator of human rights? The USA, a nation that may have committed war crimes in Iraq and Syria.

No. Human Rights are what they are. They exist outside of government recognition.

[Ors Might]

Also, one more time for the people in the back, "Assault Weapons" is a made up term coined by AG's to describe common semi-automatic rifles.

You’re going to be really upset when you learn that’s how most words and classifications work.

Not true, actually. Words and classifications especially usually have a reason why they're applied to a certain thing, place, or concept.