Gun control debate (merged)

#9,826
#9,826
Most people would be surprised to hear that Scalia wrote the leading opinion on laws of general applicability Trump inconsistent religious practices.
 
#9,827
#9,827
VolStrom said:
Mosques are just like cults if they start preaching death to America. The "Branch Davidians" were probably a lot less radical than Omar and Thalib are.
Click to expand...
Well, if the perceived safety of society supercedes individual liberty, a few deeply held personal convictions for many Americans are now on the chopping block. Radical religious sects is one.
 
#9,828
#9,828
McDad said:
I've met some snake handlers. Wow!

Animal sacrifice is allowed.

Human sacrifice isn't...it violates another's rights.
Click to expand...
1. "All Appalachian states except West Virginia outlawed the snake-handling ritual when it first emerged. The states of Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee have passed laws against the use of venomous snakes and/or other reptiles that endangers the lives of others, or without a permit."
2. Not in the front yard of your neighborhood. (location is a restriction)
3. So one person's rights can limit the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of another?
 
#9,831
#9,831
luthervol said:
1. "All Appalachian states except West Virginia outlawed the snake-handling ritual when it first emerged. The states of Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee have passed laws against the use of venomous snakes and/or other reptiles that endangers the lives of others, or without a permit."
2. Not in the front yard of your neighborhood. (location is a restriction)
3. So one person's rights can limit the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of another?
Click to expand...
Of course one's rights limit the rights of other if (and that's a critical preposition) the other party is forcing the one to relinquish those rights.
 
#9,834
#9,834
luthervol said:
And that gets at the heart of the gun debate.
Click to expand...
Disagree. There is no debate. My right to own a firearm doesnt force you or anyone to relinquish your right to life or liberty. Once i use my right to force a loss of life or liberty, i am in the wrong.

No debate. I suspect there is near universal agreement with my statements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, tennvols77 and NorthDallas40
#9,835
#9,835
McDad said:
Disagree. There is no debate. My right to own a firearm doesnt force you or anyone to relinquish your right to life or liberty. Once i use my right to force a loss of life or liberty, i am in the wrong.

No debate. I suspect there is near universal agreement with my statements.
Click to expand...
You left off pursuit of happiness, and I doubt there is any where near universal agreement with your statement.
It's not your right to own a firearm that people take issue with, it's the right of some others that people take issue with. Plus the type and number.
 
#9,836
#9,836
luthervol said:
You left off pursuit of happiness, and I doubt there is any where near universal agreement with your statement.
It's not your right to own a firearm that people take issue with, it's the right of some others that people take issue with. Plus the type and number.
Click to expand...

If you can find "the right to not take issue with", you have a thoughtful, reasonable position.

Good luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#9,838
#9,838
luthervol said:
The key is to know when to take issue with and when to not take issue with.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what your even saying here.

We've gone from rights which are limited. To rights prohibited if infringing on other's rights. To knowing when or when not to take issue which isn't a right.
 
#9,839
#9,839
McDad said:
I'm not sure what your even saying here.

We've gone from rights which are limited. To rights prohibited if infringing on other's rights. To knowing when or when not to take issue which isn't a right.
Click to expand...
You confused me first with the "if you can find 'the right to not take issue with'"
I'll go back to the beginning.
Crazy people who are a danger to themselves and/or to others should have their guns taken.
 
#9,840
#9,840
luthervol said:
You left off pursuit of happiness, and I doubt there is any where near universal agreement with your statement.
It's not your right to own a firearm that people take issue with, it's the right of some others that people take issue with. Plus the type and number.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in 2A is either a type specified nor a maximum amount owned designated. Guess the FF kinda figured firearms would advance and folks would own more than one.
 
#9,841
#9,841
DynaLo said:
Nowhere in 2A is either a type specified nor a maximum amount owned designated. Guess the FF kinda figured firearms would advance and folks would own more than one.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing they assumed people would be able to rationally and reasonably adhere to the 2A.
 
#9,842
#9,842
luthervol said:
You confused me first with the "if you can find 'the right to not take issue with'"
I'll go back to the beginning.
Crazy people who are a danger to themselves and/or to others should have their guns taken.
Click to expand...
Hmm. No qualifier [possible] as in the radical Mosque analogy.

Shouldnt they have other rights removed, too?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top