What It's Like To Own Guns...

[cullennz]

Could you rewrite the above into an understandable statement or question?

Why?

Press is a concept. Arms are arms

 

[BobTheCoward]

You have worked out the press.

The arms is clearly non negotiable

Why should people be missing their right because of cost

Sent from my GT-S5660 using Tapatalk 2

I must reiterate you are not considering systems of positive versus negative rights.

But there is an affordability issue. Some voiced that very complaint when there was outrage over "Saturday night specials".

 

[angrysoba]

Why?

Press is a concept. Arms are arms

cullennz,

Please stop.

 

[cullennz]

I must reiterate you are not considering systems of positive versus negative rights.

But there is an affordability issue. Some voiced that very complaint when there was outrage over "Saturday night specials".

I will freely admit to being an idiot if wrong but where in the documents does it mention positive and negative rights?

Sent from my GT-S5660 using Tapatalk 2

 

[theprestige]

I will freely admit to being an idiot if wrong but where in the documents does it mention positive and negative rights?

The concepts are embodied in how the rights are interpreted and implemented.

Nobody here agrees with your interpretation. The Supreme Court does not agree with you. The US government does not agree with you. The US citizenry does not agree with you. Nobody to whom this document applies seriously thinks that the right implies an entitlement. Your interpretation is unique, and--in every practical way--quite wrong.

 

[phiwum]

You have worked out the press.

The arms is clearly non negotiable

Why should people be missing their right because of cost

Sent from my GT-S5660 using Tapatalk 2

If only there were, oh, say nine learned people whose job was to tell us what the Constitution actually means, we wouldn't have to depend on New Zealanders to inform us that the Second Amendment really guarantees free guns for all.

 

[cullennz]

If only there were, oh, say nine learned people whose job was to tell us what the Constitution actually means, we wouldn't have to depend on New Zealanders to inform us that the Second Amendment really guarantees free guns for all.

All good.



Sent from my GT-S5660 using Tapatalk 2

 

[cullennz]

Just don't quote it without your extra stuff

Sent from my GT-S5660 using Tapatalk 2

 

[cullennz]

cullennz,

Please stop.

Fair point.

I crashed and died hours ago



Sent from my GT-S5660 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ziggurat]

I will freely admit to being an idiot if wrong but where in the documents does it mention positive and negative rights?

Bob: I have a horse.
Jeff: Bob has an equine animal.
Gus: No he doesn't, he never once said "equine".
Bob and Jeff: You're an idiot, Gus.

The constitution never uses those terms, but it doesn't need to. The description it provides for the 2nd amendment (and most other rights as well) clearly puts it in the category of a negative right, which you'd know if you had actually followed my advice and looked up what that means. Instead, you chose to thoroughly embarrass yourself.

 

[cullennz]

Right to bear arms.

Not a horse. Not a press. Not a dog.

Arms

 

[Orphia Nay]

You can't even spell self-defense much less understand it. Every day proud Americans gun down attackers wielding knives, or non-attackers holding nothing at all. Have fun shooting paper targets.

I do love your act. Keep it up.

 

[Ziggurat]

Right to bear arms.

Not a horse. Not a press. Not a dog.

Arms

You are only making your humiliation worse. Do your homework.

 

[jimbob]

Anyway, why shouldn't it be possible in America? Are Americans just inherently more violent than Australians?

I have seen the argument on these forums that the UK is more violent than the US and that the lack of guns is a reason.

I don't entirely follow that logic.

 

[MikeG]

I have seen the argument on these forums that the UK is more violent than the US and that the lack of guns is a reason.

I don't entirely follow that logic.

I hope you have also seen this entirely demolished. The definition of violent assault varies vastly between the two countries, as does the method of collecting data. The figures aren't comparable.

 

[jimbob]

I hope you have also seen this entirely demolished. The definition of violent assault varies vastly between the two countries, as does the method of collecting data. The figures aren't comparable.

Yes. As well as the differences in definition (not such a problem for homicide, as there are usually bodies) it would only work if someone who is impulsively violent when drunk* would be safer with access to guns.


*A major source of UK violence.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Wow a gun thread on this site? Finally someone is talking about this...

And up to 3 pages already - tl;dr.

And the ol "it worked in country X, therefore it would work here." Sweet!

Unfortunately they will never understand. Having unrestricted access to guns is the very essence of being an American. It is our fundamental right, our freedom, our protection, our manhood. Without guns there would be no USA. They are who we are!

 

[Aepervius]

The man writes but all I see are the words of a house slave.

Funny, because most of us see people upholding that 2nd amendment as sacro-saint as slave for an ideology which has no relevance in the modern world. *shrug*.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Funny, because most of us see people upholding that 2nd amendment as sacro-saint as slave for an ideology which has no relevance in the modern world. *shrug*.

Good thing I don't support the second amendment and am fully in favor of amending it.

 

[marplots]

Good thing I don't support the second amendment and am fully in favor of amending it.

If you amend an amendment it gets superpowers.