Field Reporter and Cameraman shot

[BK117B2]

I would say pretty clearly that it does not mean that you do not have them. Ignoring something is not the same thing as it not existing. Were it that simple, there would be no violations of rights, they'd just all of a sudden cease to be.

Whether you like it or not, rights exist regardless of what government does.

You're not telling me where rights come from outside the government, or proving that they come from there. If you can't do that, then your claim can probably simply be dismissed.

I merely doubted that you were actually unaware of the concept.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right

[Neu California]

Because obviously the NRA has no pull when it comes to legislation or the gun control debate.

I mean it's not like they have the influence to block banning the sale of ivory unless it's antique because of its use in many antique guns' handles. So yeah, I think basing my argument around what the NRA says is something I should do, considering their influence in the gun debate.

Where did I say the NRA doesn't have pull? I said that making an entire post/argument around one of the NRA's sillier rhetorical points is rather silly. Yes the NRA says silly things, anyone involved in politics on a major scale does, because the argument becomes less about facts and more about how much money you can throw around. To get more money the NRA has to make gun owners feel threatened.

So to repeat, yes it is a slipper slope argument. So what? Lets actually debate something of significance other than silly rhetoric used by an organization to galvanize their base to get the money they need to act effectively. The NRA also does this because it boosts gun sales, which makes gun companies happy who then support the NRA. Double win, for one bit of crazy rhetoric you get twice the income!

So we should ignore a major piece of rhetoric that comes up a lot, simply because it's silly? Are you trying to be ridiculous?

Silly or not, it's one of their biggest talking points and appears a lot , so your attempts to dismiss it are not going to work, unless you can explain why we should ignore any rhetoric that repeatedly comes from major organizations.

My point was silly so you responded with a completely unrelated post? Yeah, that's believable. Never mind that it's an argument made by the NRA, who have a huge amount of pull, as I showed above.

And as I pointed out it is a deliberate tactic used by the NRA for a number of reasons. I doubt their lobbyists walk into a representatives office and go "slippery slope!" They walk in with a check book, some statistics about gun safety, and polling data. They say, here is $X amount to your next election, the polling data we have says your constituents don't like this idea, and this idea probably won't work like everyone wants it to based on Y study.

But is is still silly rhetoric, and my point was more addressing why gun owners are generally leery of new gun control measures, besides the silly "slippery slope." So I thought I was addressing the idea behind the post, by showing an alternate explanation for the fear at new gun control measures.

As I pointed out, again, it's now part of the gun debate landscape, If they had mentioned it once or twice, you would be right, but the fact that they keep mentioning it, to the point where I seems like one of their core beliefs, no matter their actualy reasons, it's a legitimate discussion point that can't be brushed aside as you seem to be trying to do

BTW, the gun rights side has a nasty habit of ignoring or dismissing evidence that doesn't agree with them (such as Australia and Britian's gun bans bringing the murder rate way down or the fact that studies find that more guns equals more violent crime), with half-assed excuses such as "America is different!" and such, so it's not just the pro-gun control side that has issues with understanding.

Actually Great Britain's homicide numbers increased after the gun ban. Not necessarily connected, but certainly argues against banning guns bringing down the homicide rate. Australia is more contested, but generally it is agreed that their homidce rate wasn't significantly effected, though their suicide rate may have been.

Certainly state by state studies in the US question the logic less more guns = less homicides.

Okay, on the first point, oops on my part. I concede on that one.



On the second, fixed your misrepresentation of the studies I posted.

Source on areas of California effectively banning guns? And, again, when a major organization makes it a key part of its rhetoric and a major part of the national gun control debate, it's not silly to keep bringing it up, just because you don't like it being brought up.

You could say that if they said it once or twice, but when it keeps being brought up, it's a legitimate thing to discuss, but for some reason you keep trying to dismiss it as silly

You're not telling me where rights come from outside the government, or proving that they come from there. If you can't do that, then your claim can probably simply be dismissed.

I merely doubted that you were actually unaware of the concept.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right

So you can't tell me where they come from if not the government, or how they remain rights if the government takes them away. Got it. The dictionary link, while also not giving that info, is nicely condescending as well.

[BK117B2]

Where did I say the NRA doesn't have pull? I said that making an entire post/argument around one of the NRA's sillier rhetorical points is rather silly. Yes the NRA says silly things, anyone involved in politics on a major scale does, because the argument becomes less about facts and more about how much money you can throw around. To get more money the NRA has to make gun owners feel threatened.

So to repeat, yes it is a slipper slope argument. So what? Lets actually debate something of significance other than silly rhetoric used by an organization to galvanize their base to get the money they need to act effectively. The NRA also does this because it boosts gun sales, which makes gun companies happy who then support the NRA. Double win, for one bit of crazy rhetoric you get twice the income!

So we should ignore a major piece of rhetoric that comes up a lot, simply because it's silly? Are you trying to be ridiculous?

Silly or not, it's one of their biggest talking points and appears a lot , so your attempts to dismiss it are not going to work, unless you can explain why we should ignore any rhetoric that repeatedly comes from major organizations.

And as I pointed out it is a deliberate tactic used by the NRA for a number of reasons. I doubt their lobbyists walk into a representatives office and go "slippery slope!" They walk in with a check book, some statistics about gun safety, and polling data. They say, here is $X amount to your next election, the polling data we have says your constituents don't like this idea, and this idea probably won't work like everyone wants it to based on Y study.

But is is still silly rhetoric, and my point was more addressing why gun owners are generally leery of new gun control measures, besides the silly "slippery slope." So I thought I was addressing the idea behind the post, by showing an alternate explanation for the fear at new gun control measures.

As I pointed out, again, it's now part of the gun debate landscape, If they had mentioned it once or twice, you would be right, but the fact that they keep mentioning it, to the point where I seems like one of their core beliefs, no matter their actualy reasons, it's a legitimate discussion point that can't be brushed aside as you seem to be trying to do

Actually Great Britain's homicide numbers increased after the gun ban. Not necessarily connected, but certainly argues against banning guns bringing down the homicide rate. Australia is more contested, but generally it is agreed that their homidce rate wasn't significantly effected, though their suicide rate may have been.

Certainly state by state studies in the US question the logic less more guns = less homicides.

Okay, on the first point, oops on my part. I concede on that one.



On the second, fixed your misrepresentation of the studies I posted.

I merely doubted that you were actually unaware of the concept.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right

So you can't tell me where they come from if not the government, or how they remain rights if the government takes them away. Got it. The dictionary link, while also not giving that info, is nicely condescending as well.

So you didn't bother to read my posts before responding or bother to read the contents of the link before dismissing it. Everything you whine about has been answered between the two of those.

There was no condescension. Either your question was real, in which case it covered what I wanted, or your question was not real....in which case the fault clearly is yours, not mine

[Neu California]

So we should ignore a major piece of rhetoric that comes up a lot, simply because it's silly? Are you trying to be ridiculous?

Silly or not, it's one of their biggest talking points and appears a lot , so your attempts to dismiss it are not going to work, unless you can explain why we should ignore any rhetoric that repeatedly comes from major organizations.



As I pointed out, again, it's now part of the gun debate landscape, If they had mentioned it once or twice, you would be right, but the fact that they keep mentioning it, to the point where I seems like one of their core beliefs, no matter their actualy reasons, it's a legitimate discussion point that can't be brushed aside as you seem to be trying to do



Okay, on the first point, oops on my part. I concede on that one.



On the second, fixed your misrepresentation of the studies I posted.





So you can't tell me where they come from if not the government, or how they remain rights if the government takes them away. Got it. The dictionary link, while also not giving that info, is nicely condescending as well.

So you didn't bother to read my posts before responding or bother to read the contents of the link before dismissing it. Everything you whine about has been answered between the two of those.

There was no condescension. Either your question was real, in which case it covered what I wanted, or your question was not real....in which case the fault clearly is yours, not mine

I read your posts, but you've consistently refused to answer my question. Also, I read the link, which, as I said before, doesn't answer the question of where your claimed "inherent rights" come from. All you've done is insist they exist.

Or can you point me to where you said where they come from? Because they have to come from somewhere. Nothing appears out of or simply exists in a vacuum

[Spirit of Hope]

Where did I say the NRA doesn't have pull? I said that making an entire post/argument around one of the NRA's sillier rhetorical points is rather silly. Yes the NRA says silly things, anyone involved in politics on a major scale does, because the argument becomes less about facts and more about how much money you can throw around. To get more money the NRA has to make gun owners feel threatened.

So to repeat, yes it is a slipper slope argument. So what? Lets actually debate something of significance other than silly rhetoric used by an organization to galvanize their base to get the money they need to act effectively. The NRA also does this because it boosts gun sales, which makes gun companies happy who then support the NRA. Double win, for one bit of crazy rhetoric you get twice the income!

So we should ignore a major piece of rhetoric that comes up a lot, simply because it's silly? Are you trying to be ridiculous?

It is a false argument, everyone involved knows it is a false argument, pointing out it is a false argument adds nothing. It is that simple, it is used as a money making racket by the NRA. It is not the only argument they make, nor are they the sole representative of gun rights in the United States.

And as I noted gun owners do face legitimate bans as parts of proposals put forward by gun control advocates.

Silly or not, it's one of their biggest talking points and appears a lot , so your attempts to dismiss it are not going to work, unless you can explain why we should ignore any rhetoric that repeatedly comes from major organizations.

You should ignore any rhetoric that comes from a group when that rhetoric is aimed at making that group money. It is a big talking point and comes up a lot because the NRA needs/wants a lot of money to do what they do. Ever read their magazine? It screens "give us money or they take your guns away!" They aren't aiming that argument at their opponents in an attempt to get gun control advocates to give up their proposals, because their opponents understand it is a stupid argument, they are aiming it at gun owners to make the gun owners, who don't have the time to track every piece of legislation aimed at guns, feel threatened so the gun owners give money to the NRA and buy guns from the companies that give money to the NRA. Bam, one big racket designed at making money.

And as I pointed out it is a deliberate tactic used by the NRA for a number of reasons. I doubt their lobbyists walk into a representatives office and go "slippery slope!" They walk in with a check book, some statistics about gun safety, and polling data. They say, here is $X amount to your next election, the polling data we have says your constituents don't like this idea, and this idea probably won't work like everyone wants it to based on Y study.

But is is still silly rhetoric, and my point was more addressing why gun owners are generally leery of new gun control measures, besides the silly "slippery slope." So I thought I was addressing the idea behind the post, by showing an alternate explanation for the fear at new gun control measures.

As I pointed out, again, it's now part of the gun debate landscape, If they had mentioned it once or twice, you would be right, but the fact that they keep mentioning it, to the point where I seems like one of their core beliefs, no matter their actualy reasons, it's a legitimate discussion point that can't be brushed aside as you seem to be trying to do

ANd it comes up a lot because the NRA needs gun owners to feel under threat. If the NRA came out and said, "this proposal is no threat to gun owners" then less gun owners would pay the NRA, and less gun owners would go out and buy the guns that are "under threat." That adds up to less money for the NRA. So instead the NRA, in every single one of its publications, screams "if we don't have money to fight the corrupt communists they will take your guns away!" And Joe the Average Man who only fallows gun legislation in NRA publications thinks "oh no! my second amendment right!" and he pays another yearly membership to the NRA and he goes out and buys another gun. And h buys the gun the NRA says is under threat, or that he saw advertised in an NRA publication. Which all leads to the NRA getting more money.

If the NRA ever stopped with that rhetoric then it would loose money. So the NRA keeps that rhetoric on high to keep rolling in the money. It isn't rhetoric aimed at changing peoples minds, it is rhetoric aimed at the base that already agrees with the NRA and pays them money. It is rhetoric aimed at making money.

Actually Great Britain's homicide numbers increased after the gun ban. Not necessarily connected, but certainly argues against banning guns bringing down the homicide rate. Australia is more contested, but generally it is agreed that their homidce rate wasn't significantly effected, though their suicide rate may have been.

Certainly state by state studies in the US question the logic less more guns = less homicides.

Okay, on the first point, oops on my part. I concede on that one.



On the second, fixed your misrepresentation of the studies I posted.

There are a lot of studies on this topic, I'm talking about others I have seen. Some of which indicate more guns = less crime, or less guns does not = less crime.

Source on areas of California effectively banning guns? And, again, when a major organization makes it a key part of its rhetoric and a major part of the national gun control debate, it's not silly to keep bringing it up, just because you don't like it being brought up.

It wasn't a ban on guns, it was a ban on the carry of guns. Here is how it worked, in CA the open carry was illegal (and still is IIRC). In LA (and other cities) concealed carry required a permit. The permit was essentially impossible to get, they would collect them and never process them, you had to have a "real" threat to your life, you needed the police chief to sign off, etc. It was a bunch of crazy stuff, and there are some court battles over it. Here is a Wikipedia article about it.

You could say that if they said it once or twice, but when it keeps being brought up, it's a legitimate thing to discuss, but for some reason you keep trying to dismiss it as silly

Because it is silly. It isn't used as a debating point but as a money maker. It isn't the only rhetoric they use. It takes away from the true argument about gun control. It is about as worthy of notice as North Korea complaining about US & SK drills, because it isn't what the fight is actually going to shape around. When the NRA goes to war it actually starts sending lobbyists, when North Korea really wants to lodge protest it flings artillery shells. Everything else is window dressing to get support for the main action.

[BK117B2]

So you didn't bother to read my posts before responding or bother to read the contents of the link before dismissing it. Everything you whine about has been answered between the two of those.

There was no condescension. Either your question was real, in which case it covered what I wanted, or your question was not real....in which case the fault clearly is yours, not mine

I read your posts, but you've consistently refused to answer my question. Also, I read the link, which, as I said before, doesn't answer the question of where your claimed "inherent rights" come from. All you've done is insist they exist.

Or can you point me to where you said where they come from? Because they have to come from somewhere. Nothing appears out of or simply exists in a vacuum

That is not accurate. You sticking your head in the sand does not magically make things disappear.

How could government take away all your rights?

[Neu California]

So we should ignore a major piece of rhetoric that comes up a lot, simply because it's silly? Are you trying to be ridiculous?

It is a false argument, everyone involved knows it is a false argument, pointing out it is a false argument adds nothing. It is that simple, it is used as a money making racket by the NRA. It is not the only argument they make, nor are they the sole representative of gun rights in the United States.

And as I noted gun owners do face legitimate bans as parts of proposals put forward by gun control advocates.

Silly or not, it's one of their biggest talking points and appears a lot , so your attempts to dismiss it are not going to work, unless you can explain why we should ignore any rhetoric that repeatedly comes from major organizations.

You should ignore any rhetoric that comes from a group when that rhetoric is aimed at making that group money. It is a big talking point and comes up a lot because the NRA needs/wants a lot of money to do what they do. Ever read their magazine? It screens "give us money or they take your guns away!" They aren't aiming that argument at their opponents in an attempt to get gun control advocates to give up their proposals, because their opponents understand it is a stupid argument, they are aiming it at gun owners to make the gun owners, who don't have the time to track every piece of legislation aimed at guns, feel threatened so the gun owners give money to the NRA and buy guns from the companies that give money to the NRA. Bam, one big racket designed at making money.

As I pointed out, again, it's now part of the gun debate landscape, If they had mentioned it once or twice, you would be right, but the fact that they keep mentioning it, to the point where I seems like one of their core beliefs, no matter their actualy reasons, it's a legitimate discussion point that can't be brushed aside as you seem to be trying to do

ANd it comes up a lot because the NRA needs gun owners to feel under threat. If the NRA came out and said, "this proposal is no threat to gun owners" then less gun owners would pay the NRA, and less gun owners would go out and buy the guns that are "under threat." That adds up to less money for the NRA. So instead the NRA, in every single one of its publications, screams "if we don't have money to fight the corrupt communists they will take your guns away!" And Joe the Average Man who only fallows gun legislation in NRA publications thinks "oh no! my second amendment right!" and he pays another yearly membership to the NRA and he goes out and buys another gun. And h buys the gun the NRA says is under threat, or that he saw advertised in an NRA publication. Which all leads to the NRA getting more money.

If the NRA ever stopped with that rhetoric then it would loose money. So the NRA keeps that rhetoric on high to keep rolling in the money. It isn't rhetoric aimed at changing peoples minds, it is rhetoric aimed at the base that already agrees with the NRA and pays them money. It is rhetoric aimed at making money.

Okay, on the first point, oops on my part. I concede on that one.



On the second, fixed your misrepresentation of the studies I posted.

There are a lot of studies on this topic, I'm talking about others I have seen. Some of which indicate more guns = less crime, or less guns does not = less crime.

Source on areas of California effectively banning guns? And, again, when a major organization makes it a key part of its rhetoric and a major part of the national gun control debate, it's not silly to keep bringing it up, just because you don't like it being brought up.

It wasn't a ban on guns, it was a ban on the carry of guns. Here is how it worked, in CA the open carry was illegal (and still is IIRC). In LA (and other cities) concealed carry required a permit. The permit was essentially impossible to get, they would collect them and never process them, you had to have a "real" threat to your life, you needed the police chief to sign off, etc. It was a bunch of crazy stuff, and there are some court battles over it. Here is a Wikipedia article about it.

You could say that if they said it once or twice, but when it keeps being brought up, it's a legitimate thing to discuss, but for some reason you keep trying to dismiss it as silly

Because it is silly. It isn't used as a debating point but as a money maker. It isn't the only rhetoric they use. It takes away from the true argument about gun control. It is about as worthy of notice as North Korea complaining about US & SK drills, because it isn't what the fight is actually going to shape around. When the NRA goes to war it actually starts sending lobbyists, when North Korea really wants to lodge protest it flings artillery shells. Everything else is window dressing to get support for the main action.

I'll condense this to two points, since it seems to me that that we're arguing now. If you think otherwise, let me know

First, you insist that, to quote you, that "everyone involved knows [the NRA's saying that allowing any more gun control will lead inevitably to a gun ban] is a false argument", so you should be able to prove it with sources. Until then, it's still a legitimate point to bring up

Second, you mentioned studies that showed more guns equal less crime and less guns does not equal less crime. Please link those studies, as I did with my studies showing more guns correlates strongly to more crime

I read your posts, but you've consistently refused to answer my question. Also, I read the link, which, as I said before, doesn't answer the question of where your claimed "inherent rights" come from. All you've done is insist they exist.

Or can you point me to where you said where they come from? Because they have to come from somewhere. Nothing appears out of or simply exists in a vacuum

That is not accurate. You sticking your head in the sand does not magically make things disappear.

How could government take away all your rights?

Easily, the government could pass a law saying that you have no rights, and boom, you have no rights. Totalitarian dictatorships like North Korea and Stalinist Russia do it all the time.

Question for you, now. If the government takes away a right you think is inherent and not granted by the government and there is no way for you to exercise it, do you still have that right? If yes, how and where did you get said right?

[Big Jim P]

Meanwhile in Texas guns are given a tax exempt weekend.
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/polit ... 62522.html

Sadly it didn't pass:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=SB228

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=HB849

[Big Jim P]

We (Texans) also didn't get Constitutional Carry, mores the pity. All we got was a watered down open carry.

[USS Monitor]

Not all of us live in California, you know. It won't happen everywhere.

that logic is as some say "pants on head retarded"

" Well im not affected by it yet, so it wont happen to me"

California state policies have no effect at all on other states. It's not like all the other states are looking at California to see what's the hot new trend in state laws so they can all hop on the bandwagon.

[USS Monitor]

Not when it's liberal states.

Want to see liberals start supporting states rights? Just advocate a National CCW, Nation-wide open or Constitutional carry. Of course they claim the exact opposite when it come to gun control (see their arguments about what causes Chicagos gun control to fail).

Plenty of liberals already do support states' rights. States' rights have nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.

[Big Jim P]

Want to see liberals start supporting states rights? Just advocate a National CCW, Nation-wide open or Constitutional carry. Of course they claim the exact opposite when it come to gun control (see their arguments about what causes Chicagos gun control to fail).

Plenty of liberals already do support states' rights. States' rights have nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.

Maybe I should have said "gun grabbers" instead. Not a liberals are anti-gun, although many are. Those gun grabbers most certainly support states rights only when it suits their agenda and no one elses.

[USS Monitor]

Plenty of liberals already do support states' rights. States' rights have nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.

Maybe I should have said "gun grabbers" instead. Not a liberals are anti-gun, although many are. Those gun grabbers most certainly support states rights only when it suits their agenda and no one elses.

To be fair, most people are pretty selective about when they support states' rights and when they don't. It's not anything unique about the gun control crowd.

[Big Jim P]

Maybe I should have said "gun grabbers" instead. Not a liberals are anti-gun, although many are. Those gun grabbers most certainly support states rights only when it suits their agenda and no one elses.

To be fair, most people are pretty selective about when they support states' rights and when they don't. It's not anything unique about the gun control crowd.

To be truly fair, individual rights trump both.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well, I haven't.
No meaningful difference is functionally none at all.

No, going from outright denial is still progress (though much remains to be made).

The difference is quite major

Functionally not.

You're also deflecting by now changing the subject. Repeatedly.

[BK117B2]

No, going from outright denial is still progress (though much remains to be made).

The difference is quite major

Functionally not.

You're also deflecting by now changing the subject. Repeatedly.

Functionally, it is very different. You not recognizing a difference does not mean it does not exist.

You're not being honest. Responding to your questions and statements is not me changing the subject or deflecting.

[BK117B2]

It is a false argument, everyone involved knows it is a false argument, pointing out it is a false argument adds nothing. It is that simple, it is used as a money making racket by the NRA. It is not the only argument they make, nor are they the sole representative of gun rights in the United States.

And as I noted gun owners do face legitimate bans as parts of proposals put forward by gun control advocates.



You should ignore any rhetoric that comes from a group when that rhetoric is aimed at making that group money. It is a big talking point and comes up a lot because the NRA needs/wants a lot of money to do what they do. Ever read their magazine? It screens "give us money or they take your guns away!" They aren't aiming that argument at their opponents in an attempt to get gun control advocates to give up their proposals, because their opponents understand it is a stupid argument, they are aiming it at gun owners to make the gun owners, who don't have the time to track every piece of legislation aimed at guns, feel threatened so the gun owners give money to the NRA and buy guns from the companies that give money to the NRA. Bam, one big racket designed at making money.



ANd it comes up a lot because the NRA needs gun owners to feel under threat. If the NRA came out and said, "this proposal is no threat to gun owners" then less gun owners would pay the NRA, and less gun owners would go out and buy the guns that are "under threat." That adds up to less money for the NRA. So instead the NRA, in every single one of its publications, screams "if we don't have money to fight the corrupt communists they will take your guns away!" And Joe the Average Man who only fallows gun legislation in NRA publications thinks "oh no! my second amendment right!" and he pays another yearly membership to the NRA and he goes out and buys another gun. And h buys the gun the NRA says is under threat, or that he saw advertised in an NRA publication. Which all leads to the NRA getting more money.

If the NRA ever stopped with that rhetoric then it would loose money. So the NRA keeps that rhetoric on high to keep rolling in the money. It isn't rhetoric aimed at changing peoples minds, it is rhetoric aimed at the base that already agrees with the NRA and pays them money. It is rhetoric aimed at making money.



There are a lot of studies on this topic, I'm talking about others I have seen. Some of which indicate more guns = less crime, or less guns does not = less crime.



It wasn't a ban on guns, it was a ban on the carry of guns. Here is how it worked, in CA the open carry was illegal (and still is IIRC). In LA (and other cities) concealed carry required a permit. The permit was essentially impossible to get, they would collect them and never process them, you had to have a "real" threat to your life, you needed the police chief to sign off, etc. It was a bunch of crazy stuff, and there are some court battles over it. Here is a Wikipedia article about it.



Because it is silly. It isn't used as a debating point but as a money maker. It isn't the only rhetoric they use. It takes away from the true argument about gun control. It is about as worthy of notice as North Korea complaining about US & SK drills, because it isn't what the fight is actually going to shape around. When the NRA goes to war it actually starts sending lobbyists, when North Korea really wants to lodge protest it flings artillery shells. Everything else is window dressing to get support for the main action.

I'll condense this to two points, since it seems to me that that we're arguing now. If you think otherwise, let me know

First, you insist that, to quote you, that "everyone involved knows [the NRA's saying that allowing any more gun control will lead inevitably to a gun ban] is a false argument", so you should be able to prove it with sources. Until then, it's still a legitimate point to bring up

Second, you mentioned studies that showed more guns equal less crime and less guns does not equal less crime. Please link those studies, as I did with my studies showing more guns correlates strongly to more crime

That is not accurate. You sticking your head in the sand does not magically make things disappear.

How could government take away all your rights?

Easily, the government could pass a law saying that you have no rights, and boom, you have no rights. Totalitarian dictatorships like North Korea and Stalinist Russia do it all the time.

Question for you, now. If the government takes away a right you think is inherent and not granted by the government and there is no way for you to exercise it, do you still have that right? If yes, how and where did you get said right?

That doesn't answer the question. Saying 'you don't have something' does not magically make it so.

Come on, try to actually answer

[Neu California]

I'll condense this to two points, since it seems to me that that we're arguing now. If you think otherwise, let me know

First, you insist that, to quote you, that "everyone involved knows [the NRA's saying that allowing any more gun control will lead inevitably to a gun ban] is a false argument", so you should be able to prove it with sources. Until then, it's still a legitimate point to bring up

Second, you mentioned studies that showed more guns equal less crime and less guns does not equal less crime. Please link those studies, as I did with my studies showing more guns correlates strongly to more crime



Easily, the government could pass a law saying that you have no rights, and boom, you have no rights. Totalitarian dictatorships like North Korea and Stalinist Russia do it all the time.

Question for you, now. If the government takes away a right you think is inherent and not granted by the government and there is no way for you to exercise it, do you still have that right? If yes, how and where did you get said right?

That doesn't answer the question. Saying 'you don't have something' does not magically make it so.

Come on, try to actually answer

Yeah, saying "I have x" when you don't (more specifically, saying "I have this right" when you legally don't) does not mean you actually have it, either. The fact that you refuse to explain how you have a right when, legally speaking, you don't have it is not my fault

[North Calaveras]

To be fair, most people are pretty selective about when they support states' rights and when they don't. It's not anything unique about the gun control crowd.

To be truly fair, individual rights trump both.

but fuck those right?

[BK117B2]

That doesn't answer the question. Saying 'you don't have something' does not magically make it so.

Come on, try to actually answer

Yeah, saying "I have x" when you don't (more specifically, saying "I have this right" when you legally don't) does not mean you actually have it, either. The fact that you refuse to explain how you have a right when, legally speaking, you don't have it is not my fault

Legally speaking isn't relevant to the point. The law and rights are not synonyms.

Come on, try answering

[Imperializt Russia]

Yeah, saying "I have x" when you don't (more specifically, saying "I have this right" when you legally don't) does not mean you actually have it, either. The fact that you refuse to explain how you have a right when, legally speaking, you don't have it is not my fault

Legally speaking isn't relevant to the point. The law and rights are not synonyms.

Come on, try answering

So then why does this right exist?
I could claim to have any rights. I doesn't mean they exist. A system has decided that not only I am offered certain rights by the state I live in backs them legally.

So what gives the right to bear arms, exactly?

[North Calaveras]

Legally speaking isn't relevant to the point. The law and rights are not synonyms.

Come on, try answering

So then why does this right exist?
I could claim to have any rights. I doesn't mean they exist. A system has decided that not only I am offered certain rights by the state I live in backs them legally.

So what gives the right to bear arms, exactly?

the bill of "rights"?

unlike a car, which is not mentioned as a right afforded to you as an American citizen

though, rights are really a social agreement and can easily be broken/infringed upon.

[Imperializt Russia]

So then why does this right exist?
I could claim to have any rights. I doesn't mean they exist. A system has decided that not only I am offered certain rights by the state I live in backs them legally.

So what gives the right to bear arms, exactly?

the bill of "rights"?

Yes, but when this point is made, BK seems to then go "but what the law says doesn't matter, we still have that right".
I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the thought process.

[North Calaveras]

the bill of "rights"?

Yes, but when this point is made, BK seems to then go "but what the law says doesn't matter, we still have that right".
I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the thought process.

ah well, like i said, rights are social contracts that can be destroyed or taken away

hence why I am a fervent 2nd amendment fan.

[Keyboard Warriors]

the bill of "rights"?

Yes, but when this point is made, BK seems to then go "but what the law says doesn't matter, we still have that right".
I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the thought process.

BK has long had this conundrum where he recognizes certain rights as being the law of the land but won't recognize and legal body that's established with interpreting it. For example, the constitution somehow overrides SCOTUS because BK doesn't like the interpretation that was made.