Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "CNN" channel.

  1. It's amazing how you keep cutting when he clearly has more to say. It's almost like you're afraid to let him talk. You talked more than he did. Everyone should trust CNN to lie by omission...
    84
  2. You're seeking to infringe on the natural rights of the people. You are immoral, Emma. You are asking for what's illegal, Emma.
    38
  3. Johnny, what you don't understand is that it will always be 0-29 being largely the Democratic demographic, and then 30+ is largely Republican. It'll stay that way always, because a Republican is someone with life wisdom while a Democrat is a young idealist.
    14
  4. "Her arguments are strong and water-tight" No they weren't.
    9
  5. JM AF, the principle behind the Second Amendment exists whether it's written in the Constitution or not. This is the same as the rest of the Bill of Rights. She does not have a brain. She said that the UK, Australia and Canada haven't had a mass shooting since passing gun laws. This is the most untrue thing she could have possibly said. Not that statistics matter, as this is a question of how much you can trample on another individual's rights, but she was the one that said her AP studies require her arguments to be "water tight". Clearly only if its in favor of the agreed upon narrative, maybe? She has no idea what she's saying or talking about. She's ignorant, and she's being used as an appeal to emotion for an agenda she doesn't even understand. Liberty is dangerous.
    9
  6. Eric, guns are about self-preservation. This is what the Second Amendment is all about. Humans aren't exceptionally tough, strong, have claws, poisons or spines -- our self-preservation comes from the deadly and wicked weaponry we fashion. These arms are what we're guaranteed to keep and bear in the Second Amendment. The concept of it being a natural right to self-preservation by keeping and bearing arms is not dependent on the Second Amendment. It exists whether it's in the Constitution or not. When the Federalists were writing essays regarding the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment, they were wondering why it would even need to be written in the first place because it was so painfully obvious to them that was a natural right. In fact, one writer showed concern that the Second Amendment may even be used as a way to abridge unbridled ownership of arms. And, yes, she is a silly child merely repeating rhetoric (a couple of outright lies even) that she's grown up hearing about.
    7
  7. In order to stop violence in America, you need to change its culture, not what its citizens have access to. Bike theft is the most prolific crime in Japan, and it's because of Japan's culture. Their population understand responsibility and accountability intimately, and that's something that's so clearly lacking in the United States. This is why *crime* (not guns) is a problem in America.
    7
  8. Flower Child, they have a natural right to life. Government's job is to punish those who would seek to infringe that right. Being a gun owner in no way infringes on the right to someone's life unless that gun owner shoots someone. Please learn what natural rights are and why they're so important to respect.
    7
  9. 1:44 And here's where she says, "I don't care about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights." As Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote." The armaments of the sheep is the Bill of Rights. The right to voice dissent. The right to arms. The right to be protected from the government busting down your door whenever it feels like. The right to not have guards posted in your house to ensure you behave. The right to a fair trial. etc. etc. etc. If we removed the rights of someone anytime the majority feels they don't have that right, we'd be living in that tyranny that some people think is impossible in this day and age.
    6
  10. kim, this isn't a pro-life issue. The guy that did this is going down, and that's the end of the responsibility for those deaths. It was 100% him and no one else. And, yeah, all she does is recite common anti-gun talking points.
    5
  11. And given a rifle and sent to war.
    5
  12. Ian, yeah, bots. It's all bots. No one can actually be a lover of liberty. That would be a travesty. Maybe, just maybe, someone actually has an opinion that differs from yours.
    5
  13. Johnny, the Supreme Court already ruled that the right to keep and bear arms exists whether it's written as an amendment or not. That ruling is proper given the writings of the Founding Fathers.
    4
  14. Samantha, you dare me to tell what to the parents?
    4
  15. Milliband 1948, I'm not sure where you got your information about the Second Amendment, but you really need to pick up the Federalist Papers and give it a read.
    4
  16. ​ @echopoint5943  The point of this speech is heaping their failure in how they treated their fellow human being at the feet of gun owners who never did anything wrong. When she said, "Those talking about how we should have not ostracized him? YOU DIDN'T KNOW THIS KID!" all I could think of was, "The child that's not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth." Aaron Stark is a confirmation of this. I'd recommend watching his TED Talk.
    4
  17. Mike Faller, you have no power to infringe on the natural rights of another person. Just stop, because you're being objectively immoral.
    4
  18. Nuclear power is some of the cleanest power you can get. Net energy nuclear fusion will be an energy revolution more important than the founding of electricity itself. 
    3
  19. Nick Chanas, objective morality is found in natural rights. What you're talking about is the most fundamental of immoral acts that you could conceive. Even if you remove the Second Amendment, likewise with any amendment in the Bill of Rights, it does not cease to exist. The government doesn't have the legitimate power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in the first place. It was only written, as with the rest of the Bill of Rights, as an extra measure of protection. In fact, in The Federalist #84, Hamilton warned of people like you that would think the wording somehow gives the government power it doesn't have or could simply be removed.
    3
  20. Jessica, I support that black man not going to prison in the first place because of what he chooses to put in his own body. Even then ALL rights should be reinstated once a full sentence is served.
    3
  21. Amy Baynard, why do you think Republicans is perpetually the "aging demographic that will be dead soon"? Idealistic liberals move en masse to conservative and libertarian views as they age. I didn't say it was everyone, only that age is always a division on the demographic.
    3
  22. Mark Keller, people who are talking about disarming the public are people like Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Jan Schakowsky.
    3
  23. anglian, I don't think that has much of anything to do with it. I think that we just need to stop stigmatizing mental health so much, ensure that people are educated on mental health issues, get education out there regarding teenage angst and its understanding, chill out on the "all hope is lost, the economy is in the toilet, this nation sucks, you have no future, half the country hates you, etc." narrative, reach out with messages to at-risk groups offering help and support and letting these individuals who are at risk for committing these acts have a healthy outlet, and more.
    3
  24. People at TYT do coke. You'll hear John Iadarola from time to time constantly and endlessly sniff when he's on the panel.
    3
  25. I pay the NRA to lobby to maintain liberty in Congress, so no. Get rid of truly malicious lobbying first, and then I will give up lobbying for liberty.
    3
  26. Flower Child, we have the objective moral responsibility to wait until they act. Only through a person's actions can we then legitimately strip someone of their rights. Liberty is inherently dangerous. Safety is 1984.
    3
  27. Flower Child, don't break down to summary dismissal and simply restating your position. Keep up the discussion. We all have equal natural rights. It is immoral to infringe on those rights. What gives you or anyone the power to morally infringe on those natural rights?
    3
  28. Flower Child, there doesn't have to be a point. A natural right isn't something you need to explain to exercise.
    3
  29. "Now, show me 1st world countries that have banned guns and gun violence has gotten worse." I can show you that gun deaths in the US have steadily dropped in similar ways to nations that heavily legislated guns without having to ban or heavily legislate firearms.
    3
  30. Devil'sAdvocate, you're very wrong on rights being wholly subjective. Natural rights are objective to the nature of being. It has nothing to do with society, laws, people, but only the nature of existence. The nature of existence means that you must be able to adequately live. Being capable of living is the ability to defend oneself. In the case of humans, this is exercised through wicked and deadly weaponry fashioned and traded for. If we had evolved with poisonous spines, would you feel the same about this conversation should the argument be for the forced surgical removal of said spines from all people? Our continued existence in a life-threatening situation is only guaranteed by our own individual actions -- not the actions of others. If the government takes my right to own guns, and I am killed without that line of defense, does the government get punished? Does my local Congressman lose his life? Of course not. It's only my life lost and no one else's, so it's only my responsibility and no one else's. "You are completely downplaying slavery and it's popularity before it's downfall." I don't have to give you my version. Let me simply quote Jefferson in a draft of the Declaration of Independence: "he [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." "I think something needs to change. We lead the world in school shootings. You may not think things need to change and are fine with our status as the world leader in children dying in school shootings. We will see who is on the right side of history here. I'm done debating this point." You didn't debate. You just restated your original opinion while completely not addressing my points at all. "Do you really, really think that your backyard firearms are a match for our military and government technology have nowadays? Really? If our government wanted to subdue us, they would do it with or without your little peashooters. I worked for an entity that dealt with military weapon/technology. Let me just say that a 'peoples revolution' would be quickly annihilated. In less than a day. " Like in Afghanistan? Here we are 17 years later. "because 'Murica?" No, "because it's a natural right." I thought you were interested in having an actual discussion, but when one comes your way, you shut down awfully quick. You're not just looking to slap around the low-hanging fruit, are you?
    3
  31. empbac, Parkland had one resource officer that sat outside while he listened to shots going off, knowing kids were dying. More arms, more chances someone will stop the shooter. When he attacked "the left", the girl behind him said that he doesn't know any of their political affiliations, and that's why he narrowed it to the ones backing this movement and said that he wasn't attacking anyone personally -- which he wasn't. There are two types of instinctual responses in psychology: fight or flight. No one can look inside you. You have to figure out for yourself whether you're a fight or flight person. That deputy in the school was a flight person. Why don't we need armed soldiers in schools? Even if we ban all guns, a huge guy with a knife can come into a Kindergarten class and kill young kids, and without some sort of force equalizer, there's not a thing a teacher may be able to do about it. I use this as an example because this has happened in nations where guns are completely banned from citizens. If you care about children's lives, you would want to give them good protection. If I were a teacher in a classroom during a school shooting, locked in the room with my students, I'd much rather have a gun than not have one. The former gives you a chance, the latter doesn't.
    3
  32. aschoenb1, guns are not meant to increase or decrease safety of the whole. They are there as an individual choice for defense. Some homes may be safer with a gun and some may not. That is not an argument for trampling on everyone's rights.
    3
  33. I, a natural born citizen of the United States, am the NRA. You're calling to fight against me and the many, many other people who pool our money together to retain the natural right to self defense for all.
    3
  34. We have guns for killing. That's their purpose. That's why we keep them. We don't keep them as finger warmers.
    3
  35. R6 God, I'd rather take my own safety into my own hands because no politician who disarmed me is going to be executed if I die. At the end of the day, it's entirely up to me to make sure I keep breathing. It's the same with everywhere else too. You just don't hear the calls for reinstating gun ownership because dead people can't tell you that they'd be alive if they had a gun. Instead, you don't really care about lives, just lives that are rubbed in your nose.
    2
  36. Apollo, your rate of mass shootings after Port Arthur is the same as your rate of mass shootings before it. Nothing changed exceot giving up your natural rights to a government usurping power it doesn't have.
    2
  37. Galaxy, liberty is inherently dangerous. Your people once fought for liberty and freedom. What happened that you'd give it up so easily because some people die?
    2
  38. No, I have a very broad and complex philosophy of liberty that is based on Englightenment thinkers. There is no liberty to be free from fear. Money is a social construct to be governed by society. Life and self-preservation is not a construct of society nor humanity and is not under the jurisdiction of any person or entity to limit another person's access to that right. I seem to have a cavalier attitude because this isn't about people dying. It's about wanting to infringe everyone's rights when they've done nothing wrong and without even the courtesy of due process of law. With that being said, dying is something that will happen. Some will die "before their time" while others will live to an old age. Death is always tragic and nasty and horrific, but it's not going anywhere. If I die to a shooter, I'll be the one drawing fire from the shooter by engaging him. When it comes to fight and flight instinct, I fight. You are ok with people dying as long as it's not by a gun. I mean, after all, when someone is committing a stabbing attack you're not dying because you're able to run faster than the slowest person. I doubt you'd be in the back of the crowd keeping the knife-wielder busy. And you're ok with people dying because they didn't have a gun to defend themselves since you won't have your nose rubbed in that.
    2
  39. Lawmakers don't have legitimate and moral power to legislate guns.
    2
  40. Stop grandstanding against people's rights, and there will be nothing to defend against.
    2
  41. "Yes, you will still have your guns after. No one is suggesting that they take/keep them away from non violent, law abiding people." Except Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Jan Schakowsky disagree with you.
    2
  42. She's not smart. She's just an unwitting pawn.
    2
  43. Mr. Carter, our individual and natural rights should never be infringed. They are already infringed upon heavily. Please stop. When you start infringing on natural rights, you cause a real existential threat to continued civilization.
    2
  44. Akif Murad, at the end of the day, the only person responsible to ensure you continue living is yourself. The ability to defend oneself is paramount to continued survival. It's, in fact, one of the most important natural laws that exist. I also didn't say that gun rights is as important as natural rights. The right to keep and bear arms IS a natural right. My choice of verbiage is mine alone. If you have an issue with what I said, address it and not how I present it. That would be an ad hominem fallacy. Have you ever read Locke or Rousseau?
    2
  45. JNagarya, you're very ignorant on this subject. The Bill of Rights are all natural rights. They're listed as they're the most frequently attacked natural rights. And you're right that it might not have been necessary. In fact, Hamilton argued in The Federalist #84 that no matter their wording, a Bill of Rights may be used as a "colorable" pretext to grant the government powers that it doesn't have. This is exactly what you're doing. Furthermore, natural rights has nothing to do whether any god exists or not. Natural rights are objective reality of pre--government human existence. Gun ownership is, in objective fact, a right. What your example addresses is how government provides justice to individuals' natural rights. Our rights extend to the point where we infringe on another's rights. For instance, if you rob a bank, you have infringed on others' natural right to ownership of property. Therefore, the government provides justice for this infringement by removing the rights of the criminal through, and this is a very important part, due process of law .
    2
  46. Lovett Ledger, the man who is drowning has every right to life. No one will force him to give up fighting for his life. Only he has the choice to give up his life. Rights exist whether government exists or not.
    2
  47. Akif Murad, I'm talking sense and logic. You simply don't understand. Natural rights are individual, not collective. You have a collective, utilitarian view of rights. That's objectively immoral. It doesn't matter what's greater or worse for society but what's in the best interest of each individual, per individual. If a government can't exist without infringing on natural rights of individuals who've done no wrong, it has no business existing.
    2
  48. Akif Murad, "The job of a police officer is to protect civilians, is it not?" It isn't, no. If it was there job to protect us, someone would be fired anytime someone was killed. "Also, fuck you for saying the military isn't safety." It isn't. It's defense, not safety. "Also, killing is never justified." So if someone is actively stabbing you, you can't legitimately kill them? That's a pretty prey attitude. No, I take that back. Even a timid deer will try to kill a wolf. I'm not sure what that makes you.
    2
  49. Oh yeah, those deadly dangers of lottery tickets. lol
    2
  50. Samsara Judgement, automatic weapons shouldn't even be limited in the first place, so bump stocks are certainly not a legal or moral problem.
    2
  51. Logan Stevens, she doesn't understand natural law, natural rights, objective morality, nor the Second Amendment (or the entire Bill of Rights for that matter). She's very ignorant of these, and given the question the AP history teacher asked, it's clear why she's ignorant of these things.
    2
  52. Liberty is unsafe. You purchase safety with liberty. You have no right to purchase safety with my liberty.
    2
  53. Lawrence, you need to learn what a right is. You also need to learn about history, just like that pathetic AP history teacher who doesn't even understand the Second Amendment and natural rights. You were most likely taught to be completely ignorant just like she is. Natural rights cannot be morally infringed upon without due process of law with a successful conviction. No gun restrictions on the books are legal nor moral and nothing you listed is legal nor moral.
    2
  54. Billy Badass, you need to look up what infringe means.
    2
  55. Devil'sAdvocate, liberty is inherently dangerous. When you don't carefully watch everyone all the time, there is inherent danger in that. That does not give anyone the right to trample on anyone else's individual natural rights and essential liberties. So the argument comes down to not statistics, but a higher-level argument of liberties' and rights' roles in civilization. If rights and liberties are not protected, whether you agree with the right or liberty or the exercise thereof, how can you expect civilization to continue?
    2
  56. Richard, the good news is that even if they completely amend away the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the unbridled right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on the Constitution to exist. They can't win this without patently breaking the law, let alone going against personal liberty and natural rights.
    2
  57. allgoo19, subjective opinions should never be the basis on authorization to exercise a natural right.
    2
  58. Bobby Jones, there were no facts here. The butthurt comes from the clear ignorance displayed by goddamn AP students and teachers. It's sad.
    2
  59. Mary Empire, natural rights as a whole are more important than any person.
    2
  60. Sarah Kaplin, yeah, you really don't care then. You cry you want to be safe, but then the one thing that would actually directly keep you safe, you cry about because of how it'd make you feel. You don't care if you're safe if that which makes you safe also makes you feel bad. It's like getting struck by lightning and dying from holding an umbrella in a thunderstorm because your curl would be ruined otherwise.
    2
  61. eyup tan, I'd feel more comfortable with a teacher trained and certified carrying a gun in class than I would with no guns in school at all.
    2
  62. Fool in the rain', TSA is a far cry from having armed security and staff. Nobody ever complained about airport security, only the TSA.
    2
  63. eyup tan, let's say that Pa's niece is in Kindergarten. Let's say her two teachers are young women about 5'2" and 90 lbs. Let's say a 6'2" 240 lbs. man comes in with a knife and starts killing the children. Do you think his niece would be safer if there was someone armed there or not?
    2
  64. Derrell J. Thompkins, if that were the case, then the armed resource officer at Parkland must have hampered those kids' education, right?
    2
  65. Arachnoscribe, thank you. Some people seem to really not understand how dangerous the world really is.
    2
  66. dmckenzie, I don't think you know what the War of 1812 was about if you think that America winning that war would mean Canada wouldn't exist.
    2
  67. Lucy's Mom, it's sad that you take such delight in trampling on people's natural rights.
    2
  68. In this case, they are lobbying to secure individual rights. That's not a bad thing, and that's why I throw my money in with that pool.
    2
  69. Abe, if you pass more gun control laws, especially something like reinstating the assault weapons ban of 1994, you will be directly responsible for endangering this continued society by committing moral crimes against all individuals.
    2
  70. Abe, one last thing: You have a right to defend yourself. Stop bitching and use it and expect others to use it too.
    2
  71. Totah Sam, you're completely ignorant regarding what the Second Amendment is. You also clearly have no understanding of what natural rights are. If I were to answer the teacher's question, I would have said, "As an AP history teacher, you should know what natural rights are. You should also know that the accurate answer you get from this question will not agree with you." Then I would continue, "I'll give you the proper answer, but you don't want to hear it. The preamble of the Second Amendment is referencing Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution which enumerates the powers given to the Federal government. Included in that is training, funding and having at its beck and call the militia. This was a completely new definition of what a militia was. The reason the Second Amendment was written was to ensure that this new definition would not be used as a pretense to infringe on anyone's natural rights to keep and bear arms and would be untouched by the government. Untouched." Finally, I would explain, "In The Federalist #84, Hamilton wrote of the Bill of Rights in general that he was concerned that any wording they chose could be used as a 'colorable' pretext to grant powers to the government that it doesn't have. You are doing exactly what Hamilton feared would happen." Anyone who has actually taken time to study these matters in an unbiased fashion have no question regarding the intention of the Second Amendment, and indeed the entire Bill of Rights. Your homework is reading the political philosophies of Locke and Rousseau in regards to natural rights and the social contract. That is your fundamental reading. Then you're to pick up and read the Federalist Papers, keeping in mind the political philosophies of the previous two authors.
    2
  72. Will Fernandez It's a valid argument against the banning of Kinder Eggs, sure. I don't think that's a direction you think that could go, however.
    1
  73. alex And Australia banned guns, and they've had mass shootings. Apparently there seems to be little to no correlation.
    1
  74. Will Fernandez Apparently not, since Switzerland has issued everyone fully automatic weapons, and they don't have the issue with mass shootings that America (or even Australia) has. Switzerland, thanks to its gun and militia policy, was not occupied during World War II. It doesn't seem so stupid.
    1
  75. Kenneth Pittman I appreciate you for addressing that bit of bigotry on his part. I didn't have the patience for it.
    1
  76. OurWorld, just because you don't like him doesn't mean it's alright to ignore due diligence and fall for confirmation bias.
    1
  77. This ought to be good.
    1
  78. "Need"? Where's the existential threat to the nation that calls for "need"?
    1
  79. It is not for you -- or anyone -- to say how, when and with what capacity another has a right to defend myself. This is an example of the human desire to dominate himself. The defense of oneself and his family is a right given by nature to every living thing in existence. Consider this -- if guns are not the answer -- why do you think that these people are choosing to go to an elementary school, theater or college to commit their murders? Why not a shooting range or police station?
    1
  80. Hassan, maybe you should ask why before you start just being angry. You're part of what's wrong with this world: not enough people listening, too many asserting their opinions on a soap box in an echo chamber.
    1
  81. This is unacceptable NRA. You're supposed to be protecting our natural rights. Don't worry about popularity. Educate about what natural rights are and why they're important to not infringe on anyone else's rights.
    1
  82. RedHoodAssassin3, 30 - 100-year-olds are right more often than those that come before in age.
    1
  83. Eimear Dempsey, your argument is that Europe is doing just fine? What kind of ridiculouness is that? Europe is one of the worst regions in the world to be a black person. The European Union is struggling to keep major nations in it. Europe is being ravaged with terrorist activity on a regular basis. Greece is in shambles. EU subsidization undermines honest farmers in Africa by undercutting them. The serious crime rate in Europe is troublesome. I'm not saying here that Europe is worse than anyone else, butt don't act like it's awesome.
    1
  84. haha, how much do you think they had to leave on the cutting room floor of him being turned down for a gun sale? I'd love to know the conversation this gentleman had with the kid before selling the gun. So much left to be wondered. Biased propaganda.
    1
  85. Chris Ehmke, first of all, they do have mass shootings. The exception is Japan. Then people stab up schools, killing a dozen or so per instance. You can't find safety in banning guns. Furthermore, no one has the legitimate power to infringe on any innocent individual's natural rights.
    1
  86. Chris Ehmke, despite what your opinion is, natural rights are objective reality. They don't change based on your opinion. They lay the foundation for secular objective morality. You are immoral.
    1
  87. Connor Brady, so because concessions were made that the Founding Fathers knew were tyrannical to keep the Southern States in the new union instead of fighting against them with the British, it nullifies everything else? That makes zero sense. The fact that the Founding Fathers knew that they were having to include tyrannical things like this in the Constitution is exactly why they felt it was so important to keep things like the Second Amendment. The philosophy that's behind the document is what's flawless and perfect. Let me sum up the philosophy: Because I exist, I have the right to do anything I want. Because I am sentient, I realize that everyone has that same right. Because I am moral, I believe everyone's rights are equal. Because I am logical, I know we cannot infringe on each others' rights.
    1
  88. daniel Davis, voting is a constitutional right, not a natural right. See, you don't even know what you're talking about. Trade and ownership of property is indeed a natural right. Therefore, buying any gun I wish is a natural right.
    1
  89. Night Channels, you can't amend away the Bill of Rights.
    1
  90. Merrill Falk, you don't need to post online, but here you are. Need is not a matter in the exercise of natural rights.
    1
  91. White Walkers, you're fucking your own rights too. Just ask any black man who's driven how this government just loves to respect all those rights you care about so deeply.
    1
  92. White Walkers, liberty is dangerous. I'd rather live with liberty and take the lumps from that than live under tyrannical authoritarianism and those lumps.
    1
  93. Night Channels, you have a lot to learn about comparative criminology. The worst crime in Japan is bike theft. Japan's honor culture is a significant factor on their crime rates, not overbearing legislation.
    1
  94. Starx8591, to say there are no natural rights is to say that there's no existence without government.
    1
  95. NIGHT CHANNELS, if you are not willing to submit to a knowledge test before speaking on matters, you are not a responsible user of the First Amendment.
    1
  96. Connor Brady, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, natural right. It doesn't change. It is an objective fact. The Second Amendment and the philosophy behind it hasn't changed one iota. What has changed, however, is our government becoming more and more tyrannical.
    1
  97. Connor Brady, interpreting the law isn't dissecting it to try to make it mean what you want it to mean. It's seeing if it applies to a novel situation. For instance, someone yells, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, people stampede, and some are killed. The person who yelled, "FIRE!" argues that he can't get in trouble for it because of his freedom of speech. The court reviewed the case and determined it was a constitutional matter. Then they went to trial and heard arguments. The court then determines, or more accurately reiterates what has long ago already been determined, that you can't use a right to infringe on someone else's rights. In this case, using the right to free speech which leads to an infringement on someone else's life.
    1
  98. Connor Brady, the very nature of our existence means we are subservient and dependent on our parents for protection. Federal statutes have no minimum age limit for long guns -- only hand guns require a person to be 18. Still, these laws are unconstitutional, so you can't use them to support your argument. The fundamentals have to be argued first, and that is in regards to natural rights.
    1
  99. Connor Brady, do what I've done and actually read. Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, and The Federalist Papers are good primers. If you think that this is a subjective view I have, then you're absolutely wrong.
    1
  100. How dare you think you can trample on other people's natural rights, kiddo? What makes you think that's moral?
    1
  101. You can use a phone's video while in aircraft mode.
    1
  102. You can hear him say, "Nah fool." He apparently could hear them.
    1
  103. Larrity, senility is a serious and real disease that you shouldn't be using as a low blow to avoid actually discussing the issue at hand. Not everyone experiences symptoms of senility.
    1
  104. "Conservatism in the US, or at least the Republican interpretation of it, has become some very confused version of libertarianism." This is something I can agree with.
    1
  105. "Are you one of these Russian trolls that Mueller was investigating?" Did you fact check what I said? Dianne Feinstein following the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." Jan Schakowsky was interviewed and said that an assault weapons ban was just the beginning and that she was against handguns. Hillary Clinton has said I don't know how many times in the past two years that weapons of war have no place on our streets, and Barack Obama has given the same spiel. Five years ago the official playbook for gun control advocates was leaked. This included, "EMPHASIZE THAT BANNING ASSAULT WEAPONS COULD BE A PIVOTAL STEP IN RESTORING COMMON SENSE TO AMERICA’S GUN LAWS." This guide recommends that when someone says, "This is just a first step. Once they ban these weapons, they’ll be coming after your handguns and your rifle," the recommended response is, "The NRA should just come out and say it: there are no weapons so dangerous that they shouldn’t be on sale at your local gun shop." My personal favorite is the thing that seems to be the go-to for any liberal when championing an agenda, "DON’T ASSUME THE FACTS – AND DON’T WAIT FOR THEM." "POINT TO SOLUTIONS – ... BANNING ASSAULT WEAPONS AND HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES AND ENFORCING THE BAN ON FOREIGN-MADE ASSAULT WEAPONS..." Actually review what someone's claims are. Don't make a fool of yourself assuming someone's wrong.
    1
  106. Jacob White, people that live in large cities are by and large democrat. They'll always outweigh the people who don't live in big cities by number. That's why we keep the electoral college around.
    1
  107. Phoebe, congratulations. Anecdotal evidence to refute my claim... No wonder you're still a Democrat.
    1
  108. "Obama's executive order was for background checks on Social Security recipients who couldn't mentally manage their finances." They would fail the background checks. This makes zero sense whatsoever. There are otherwise perfectly fine and responsible people that can't manage their finances. For instance, individuals with corpus callosum issues may have a very difficult time connecting money with value, but be perfectly fine otherwise.
    1
  109. I know! Due process and warrants are totally fascist.
    1
  110. He seized authoritarian power using a false flag attack (arson at the Reichstag) on which he blamed the communists, successfully talked President Hindenburg to suspend civil liberties and all communist elements in Germany were arrested. This included many members of Parliament who were then replaced by NSDAP who gained majority and allowed Hitler to complete his rise to totalitarian dictatorship power.
    1
  111.    If you think there's not a significant cultural element to violence, why are some nations more violent than others?
    1
  112.    So why is the UK violent?
    1
  113.    Oooh, so culture is the reason these nations are so violent? Thanks for agreeing with me.
    1
  114.    All good, my friend. <3
    1
  115. "Also, it's the government's responsibility to protect its citizens from shooters and assault rifles." No it isn't. Please, take time to read to understand what natural rights are. John Locke is a prominent influence in the founding of this nation and the role of this government. Trampling on people's rights is morally reprehensible.
    1
  116. All psychics are fakes. Psychic abilities have been proved to be false time and again from government programs to test the validity of psychic warfare to independent lab studies. They should go back to the days where fortune telling, palm reading, psychic advisors and the whole lot are outlawed.
    1
  117. Lauren, how does being against having everyone's rights trampled on in any way suggest that there's no compassion? Think.
    1
  118. If you actually did journalism, this might have been a threat to journalism.
    1
  119. Carl Frimes's Eyepatch, any infringement on the natural rights of the people is immoral and illegal. That includes the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Congress isn't even granted the power to infringe on the natural rights of the people, and it can't be granted those rights. Natural law sits, unchangeable, above the Constitution.
    1
  120. squanto2, if you knew your history, you'd know that Crowder's simply echoing great Enlightenment thinkers whose political philosophies greatly influenced the founding of this nation, such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Locke.
    1
  121. Sandi Sithebe, you don't need to win a revolution to affect a shrinkage of tyranny. As Jefferson wrote, to paraphrase, what country could maintain its liberty if its government isn't reminded from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance.
    1
  122. Debbie Qalballah, God stated that thou shalt not kill, but he also stated that justice is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
    1
  123. Alyssa Hayes, unfortunately her voice is completely ignorant and wrong. Even the AP history teacher clearly doesn't understand the Second Amendment and natural rights.
    1
  124. Clara Clearwater, natural rights are objective reality. It can never be an outdated idea.
    1
  125. Daisy Salinas, no, slavery wouldn't still exist. The only reason it was kept around was to appease the southern states and keep them from fighting with the British. The British are the ones who forced slavery on their colonies just to control them. Britain had even outlawed slavery already within the country itself, but they kept it going full sail in their colonies. The Founding Fathers, if they didn't need to appease the southern states, would have gotten rid of slavery immediately.
    1
  126. Jasmine Duff, how does that comment even follow? It's not their opinion on guns; it's their acceptance of the fact that natural rights are the basis for secular morality.
    1
  127. And Y, I have the natural right to own anything I want.
    1
  128. Jeffrey D, your disregard for individual rights is loathesome and objectively the most immoral thing in existence.
    1
  129. "Who said you have the right to own anything you want?" By my existing, I have the natural right to own anything I want. That's the same as you. "You should know more than me that you have restrictions in guns." And these restrictions are immoral.
    1
  130. Jeffrey, you call me ignorant. Could you please define what a natural right is in your own words? We'll see who's ignorant here.
    1
  131. Now you suddenly have nothing to say when it's time to prove that you're not ignorant. Well, better to keep your mouth shut and everyone think you a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt, right?
    1
  132. Jeffrey, if you could define it, you'd relish the chance to show me up. You have no idea what you're talking about.
    1
  133. So define it already. Let's see what you know, Jeffrey.
    1
  134. I don't see why individual rights is mutually exclusive to marriage. Perhaps you can explain your thought process on that, John.
    1
  135. The general election is just a nicety. There's no requirement for a state to abide by the general election. As written, the state's legislature chooses its electors to send to Washington (the people voted for their representatives so this maintains more of a republic structure in the election). In fact, the general election wasn't even a thing following the ratification of the US Constitution. States only slowly started having general elections.
    1
  136. Steven, natural rights are in no one's power to restrict on any other individual who has done no wrong.
    1
  137. Unless an Airbus has a 1:1 or better thrust-to-weight ratio when laden with fuel and tons upon tons of supplies, it wouldn't have matters. (Here's a hint -- it doesn't).
    1
  138. "Teaching truth" And that's the problem. Whose truth? "I'm teaching children to question America" And that's also a problem. You're not teaching good critical thinking and filtering skills in general. You're teaching them how to see America as a set of racist institutions. CRT is Master's-level research. I don't trust teachers to understand it. I don't trust people that teach the teachers to understand it. I foresee that we just end up with a harmful, twisted version of the research much like the "give every kid a trophy" thing that Dweck, the original researcher, had to try to stymie. And two of the biggest issues in twisting CRT are Kendi and DiAngelo.
    1
  139.  @nate312  I'm sorry, but I believe I gave impersonal, rational, and coherent arguments for my issues here. If you have a problem with my arguments attack those arguments. Do not attack me personally. That's not for my sake, but for yours so you don't look like a ill-educated ass clown. "highschool and up should not even be an issue" Good critical thinking and filtering skills, sadly, aren't even a general educational requirement until you're going for a graduate degree. Most college students aren't even going to be prepared properly to critically review emerging research such as CRT. Don't even get me started on Kendi and DiAngelo with that "fragile" ego nonsense.
    1
  140. Let's take your country as an example. Let's say that a Nazi regime repeats itself -- for whatever reason, it doesn't matter -- how will the people have the power to fight against it? There is no correlation between number of guns/stringent gun laws and gun murder rates.
    1
  141. Akif Murad, maintaining natural rights is the most fundamental of objective moral principles that exist. There are many instances in which killing someone is justified. Owning guns isn't within a framework only introduced by government, so it's not at all within the power of the government to legislate. It's the same with all natural rights. They supersede government. Every time you come up with the argument that gun rights aren't more important than kid's lives, just know that you're presenting a false dichotomy -- a logical fallacy.
    1
  142. JNagarya, those items in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is what the preamble of the Second Amendment is referencing. These items were a novel definition of what a militia is. The Second Amendment was therefore written to ensure that these items in Article 1 wouldn't be used as a pretense to disarm the people.
    1
  143. JNagarya, military and law enforcement are not safety. They are equally a threat by way of government power and equally entities that seek justice after the fact. There are indeed times when homicide is justified. Specifically when the one killed was seeking to infringe on your right to life. That's when homicide is justified. The central element in the crime of "assault with a deadly weapon" is the forced compliance by threat of violence, which strips a person's natural right to choose for themselves what to do. Prisons are there for the government to provide justice to those who seek to infringe on the natural rights of others. And then, it's through the due process of law of the individual. It is not a collective responsibility.
    1
  144. Akif Marud, the Second Amendment doesn't need to be in the Constitution in order to be in effect. It is objective reality that it's a natural right. The opinion of the people who made it on other matters is just argumentum ad hominem. Isaac Newton believed unquestionably in God, but that doesn't change the laws of motion he observed and recorded. Just because you don't feel like your rights have been taken away, doesn't mean they haven't been. Natural rights has nothing to do with the instrument in its practice being derived from nature.
    1
  145. Akif Murad, it doesn't make sense that you say you care about an individual's rights, but then you're selective in what natural rights you support. American society doesn't have an existential threat from shootings. It does, however, have an existential threat from trampling on the rights of the people. We can absolutely be collective on all of the higher-level aspects of subjective society and government, but there can never successfully be infringements on natural rights without directly endangering the continuation of society.
    1
  146. Alex, what do you mean by "stricter"? I personally don't think background checks should exist.
    1
  147. Chapel, I like that quote.
    1
  148. Victoria, 30,000 dying a year is not an existential threat to the US. Stop acting like it is.
    1
  149. Jacob, unless he does the shooting, he can't be held accountable. Individual responsibility.
    1
  150. Kristen, you'll be trampling on other people's natural rights and sentencing some to death on top of it. As long as you don't see it, it's fine, right?
    1
  151. She's ugly...
    1
  152. Paul2377, it's a natural right of every single person to have any weaponry they choose. This is objective morality. Your subjective immoral views of society are far secondary to the objective nature of natural rights.
    1
  153. Donald Henson, even automatic firearms are protected by the Second Amendment. In fact, it's not protected by the Second Amendment, it's a natural right and the Second Amendment (nor any of the Bill of Rights) doesn't even need to exist for these to be clear limitations on the government.
    1
  154. Give'ryourall, automatics aren't prohibited, what 200 models of firearms are banned? The courts have ruled that these weapons are protected. You can own a bazooka. And it doesn't say, "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be taken away." It says that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Infringement is ANY limitation or block. This is what natural rights are. Natural rights can in no way be legitimately infringed by anyone else against a person who's done no wrong. Full stop. It's completely immoral on an objective basis under any circumstance.
    1
  155. Kay Foley, giving up individual rights and liberty is never the answer.
    1
  156. Sun Boi, if you don't understand how "because freedom" is a valid point, you should pick up John Locke and have a read.
    1
  157. Sun Boi "I'd rather run from someone with a knife" I'd rather have a gun to stand and defend myself and others in either circumstance. After all, you only survive a knife attack because your ran faster than the slowest person who's getting stabbed instead of you.
    1
  158. Sun Boy +Respect. Do you think that people having their own firearms (all kinds, no limitations on what kind discussed here from a machine gun to a pistol) is an existential threat to our society?
    1
  159. Casey, you're the one scared of people being unrestrained in the natural right of owning guns.
    1
  160. Lawrence Hunt, I don't agree with you about immigration policy either. It clearly infringes on the people's natural right to move freely. Natural rights does include unfettered acquisition. What do you think a natural right is? And "up to the semi-automatic level" means heavily infringed beyond that point. Safety is never an excuse for infringing on anyone's natural rights. Ever.
    1
  161. Jose, infringement and losing the freedom to own a weapon when you've committed no act that infringes on the natural rights of another is immoral. You're splitting hairs to try to justify your position, but you can't because your position is objectively immoral.
    1
  162. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
    1
  163. Human memories are short and their tempers and social climatology are highly unstable. Sometimes all the education and diplomacy in the world does not stop the inevitable human desire to dominate himself.
    1
  164. Devil'sAdvocate, liberties and rights are not a subjective construct of society, but an objective right of existence. There was never an objective liberty or right to own slaves. You cannot legitimately own another person, as a right can be individually exercised to the point of the infringement of the individual right of another. Therefore, a person can individually own any piece of property he wishes, but owning a person infringes on that person's individual natural rights. Liberty and rights transcend needs. The right to keep and bear arms is about individual self-preservation, and there's no limits on that, whether that preservation is against your own government, a foreign government, a criminal that seeks to do you harm, obtaining food by hunting, or any of the unlimited number of reasons each individual can come up with as to why they exercise the right to own whatever gun they choose. I'm not saying that America wouldn't be safer for it, at least temporarily, and for some, while more dangerous for others, but that infringing on rights and liberty is a dangerous path in the long run that is the true existential threat to continued civilization. I would suggest you read John Locke on the subject of natural rights. It's very different from the collectivism that you're espousing.
    1
  165. Devil'sAdvocate, I know you could own another person, but it was not a right -- nor objectively viewed as one. Something being legal doesn't imply in any way that it's a right. Rights are very different from law, though law can be derived based on rights, they are often not. If it weren't for needing the Southern colonies to fight the British, slavery would have immediately ended in the Americas. The slavery forced on English colonies by the Crown was a major point of contention between the American colonies and King George's rule. It was noted by the Founding Fathers that slavery was an affront to personal liberty of the slave. Slavery was the affront on individual liberty allowed by law. In the same manner, gun legislation is the affront on liberty that is allowed by law. These are both examples of illegitimate usurpation of power over the individual's rights. There are people (in Congress, so their opinions matter significantly) who are very clear that they are for banning all firearms. The war weapon is a low-hanging fruit responsible for a few hundred of deaths a year, while all other firearms are responsible for nearly 30,000 (most of those from handguns). It's all downhill once you ban the weapon that has a look easy to ban but the stats don't support it when you can then bring out the stats for the firearms harder to ban and argue that there's already a ban for the weapon with the significantly fewer deaths attributed to it. Now, why does anything need to change? Is there an actual existential threat here that calls for "need"? I don't see one. Personally, I would like things to change. If that change requires rights to be trampled on, then I accept that's how things are without the change. I think that there's a lot we can do to try to affect change without touching rights. I believe I did already explain why automatic or semi-automatic weapons of war would be legitimate purpose for ownership. I also believe I already explained that collectivism in rights and responsibility is crushing to liberty. I gave you a reading assignment as well for John Locke so you better understand what individual rights and liberties are and how they exist objectively, did I not? Summarily disregarding what I'm saying isn't an effective way to argue. Now you say that people need to look at the bigger picture, while I see those wanting gun control to be hopelessly small-picture type of people. School shootings happen, so we should regulate guns is about as myopic a cause-effect relationship that I think there could be on sweeping legislative policy. My mom, she's just getting to her 60's now, carries a .380 in her purse. If some have it their way, they would require her to trade in that right to personal defense so, possibly, kids won't get shot in the future (note: They'll still die. Even Japan has school stabbings, but they just won't be shot and there won't be as many casualties). In exchange my mom could be in a position where a gun could save her life, and it'll have been taken it from her. Would you then feel responsible for the fewer kids that die from vehicular assault, stabbings, etc. as well as those who died because they were denied a gun because that's the direction that society went? And when illegitimate powers take hold of our government and begin genocidal actions, will you feel responsible then that we had no arms to defend ourselves and fight back? It seems that you're exchanging for feeling bad about deaths being rubbed in your face for deaths that won't be rubbed in your face.
    1
  166. Constituent, and that's why we punish those who hit you with a bullet.
    1
  167. Devil'sAdvocate, the right to self-preservation through any fashioned weaponry deemed prudent by only the owner of said weaponry is part and parcel to continued existence. Guns are all weapons of war. Guns were only developed because they were highly effective at killing people in battle. Guns are weapons of war that have found other peacetime uses in personal defense, hunting, and sport. Rights do cover everything a person can do. A person's individual exercise of rights are equally respected to each individual's natural rights as a negative (that is, existing without action). As explained before, I don't have a right to own a slave. The natural right to ownership does not extend to an ability to infringe on another person's right to freedom. Does this better explain the concept to you?
    1
  168. I was just kind of reviewing all of the responses on my posts, and I came across this which gave me pause: "A 'right' is something that is viewed by every person differently." This sentence didn't give me as much pause the first time I read it as much as it should have. Devil'sAdvocate, I don't know who you are, where you came from, or where you got your education, but it's deeply disconcerting to me that you don't even understand what a right is. When people say, "Healthcare is a right," I was confused by this sentiment. I thought they were just front loading phrases to give credence to their cause. I'm not one who's entirely against ensuring everyone has access to healthcare, but I always thought the statement that it was a right was irksome. But you saying this shows me that maybe people really don't understand at all what a right even is. They're not just misusing the term, but they're completely ignorant of what it actually means. Why isn't this aspect of political philosophy being taught in schools?
    1
  169. Constituent, you can't tax a right. If you can tax ammo, you can tax voting. Education is handled by the states, not the Federal government, and I would gladly pay more state income tax and/or property tax to fund more security at public schools. I also think that teachers should have the option to train to concealed carry to class.
    1
  170. Voting is managed with taxes, but voting is not taxed. If a qualified adult with a firearm is not good enough for you, what would be?
    1
  171. Constituent, an armed resource officer can't be everywhere at once, but a teacher is actually with the students most of the time. You'd rather students be completely helpless than have an armed guardian. That makes no sense. Even if there were absolurely no guns, places like Japan and China show us that our children are still in real danger as mass stabbingngs as, per attack, dozens of children die. No matter what, armed teachers are called for.
    1
  172. CNN criticizing anyone else on being divisive is the pot calling the kettle black.
    1
  173.  Ronnie Jackson  The red and black flags on antifa's symbol told us that.
    1
  174. What makes you think that a government is incapable of becoming a tyranny? I can cite precedent for being wary against tyranny until my fingers cramp, but what makes you think that the past is suddenly incapable of repeating itself?
    1
  175. Istvan, many on the left here would love to ban guns, yes.
    1
  176. Elheru, except it does happen still. Monash University shooting, the police HQ shooting, the Sydney Hostage Crisis....
    1
  177. No shit they're for killing. What do you think hunting is?
    1
  178. AP history teacher and she doesn't even understand what the preamble of the Second Amendment means. This is who is teaching our highest achieving children, people.
    1
  179. Z Kiedis, so there are some 53 million households in the US with a gun in it. The average household has 2.54 people. That is about 134 million people with access to a firearm. Do you really intend to try to tell me that none of those people have mental issues and yet still do not commit suicide or unjust homicide?
    1
  180. "This isn't the movies, there aren't usually guys in ski masks trying to break down your door in the middle of the night -- and if there are, they're probably with the government and shooting at them is a crime..." That depends on why they're there. The shooting is lawful if the government agents are performing unlawful actions.
    1
  181. S Sh, individual responsibility. The onus of these deaths rest squarely and only on the shoulders of the shooter, not every gun owner in the same way that some anti-trump demonstrators committing violence does not give authorization to infringe on other's freedom to protest Trump.
    1
  182. Bazal, please learn what natural rights are and how civilization affects that. John Locke's version of the social contract is probably one of the most prominent figures that inspired the role of government in this country. Read his works.
    1
  183. Bazal, when someone does like in Japan and China and slaughters over a dozen preschoolers and Kindergartners in a knife attack, what will you say then? You should have been in a position to defend these children we leave in your care. If you are too scared to do that and just let them die, whether by guns or anything else, then I feel sorry for you.
    1
  184. Alexis, no one's been able to eliminate mass shootings.
    1
  185. Taylor, considering school stabbings happen in Japan and China, I would think the same would happen here given the same circumstances. In that case, an armed guard would still be called for to keep children from dying.
    1
  186. Sauerkraut, liberty is inherently dangerous. There's no way around that. We still value it. Even you. You just selectively force others to give up their natural rights so you can have a false sense of security that doesn't exist.
    1
  187. First and utterly foremost, something that needs to be understood is that liberty is inherently dangerous. If you consistently seek safety, you are no friend of liberty. The Second Amendment is not required for the natural right and essential liberty to defend yourself with whatever deadly weaponry you can make or trade for. You can choose for yourself only what liberty you exercise. You do not have the right to choose what rights and liberties others have. She is looking at both collective rights and collective responsibility, not individual rights and individual responsibility. This is exemplified when she says, "When adults tell me I have a right to own a gun, all I can hear is, 'My right to own a gun outweighs your student's right to live...'" Except that is completely wrong. His ownership of a gun does not infringe on a student's right to life. If he shot a student, then he would be infringing on that student's right to life. Someone else using a gun to infringe on a student's right to life does not in any way apply an attribute to the trampling of rights on anyone else who also owns a gun. Also, you need to check your facts, since they're not "water tight" (not that they matter since this isn't a question of statistics but a question of liberty and how much you can legitimately infringe on liberty, but since you want to bring up having your arguments "water tight"), Australia has had mass shootings since the Port Arthur massacre: the Monash University shooting, the Police HQ shooting, and the Sydney Hostage Crisis. The UK also has had a mass shooting since legislation (which is neither a decrease nor increase in rate of mass shootings, and that's the same as with Australia). Canada also continues to have mass shootings. This isn't a discussion. This is a soap box and an echo chamber... She will not learn because she is surrounded by people clapping and nodding, not disagreeing and discussing.
    1
  188. Mary Empire, everyone's rights are individual and there is no collective responsibility. Individual responsibility, individual rights. No one has any moral ground to infringe on the rights of another who's done no wrong. None at all.
    1
  189. Mary, of course guns are created to kill. There are times when killing is justified. Those times are when someone else is endangering your natural right to life.
    1
  190. Mary, I love Trump anything? That's a big assumption. What has Trump done for people's natural rights? He wants to build a wall restricting the freedom of movement of people. EVERYONE has the exact same natural rights; everything listed in the Bill of Rights and so much more. That's our objective nature. He's gone on and on and on about the "opioid crisis" non-stop when it's a natural right for anyone to imbibe whatever they see fit. In the same vein, you don't see him signing any executive orders that allows for the federal deregulation of marijuana. Why would I love Trump, or his son, if I put natural rights above all else?
    1
  191. Mary Empire, I notice you didn't respond to me. Is that because I broke your stereotyping?
    1
  192. Mary Empire, that doesn't even make sense. You're just avoiding addressing the argument.
    1
  193. So, Mary, your only method of argument is ad hominem and deflection? That's pretty sad. And I'm sure, despite the fact that you can't pose a logically sound argument against me, you still are going on believing whatever you want to believe. And I bet you think the right ignores logic and science. You should check yourself first.
    1
  194. Beltran Village, natural rights are never outdated.
    1
  195. Yailen Trenhs, part of defending ourselves is defending ourselves from the government. The government controlling who can and can't get guns is a conflict of interest.
    1
  196. Yailen Trenhs, if we can't trust the government, who controls the guns?
    1
  197. Mo Ajeb, there were two students who said it was scripted. Did both state they lie?
    1
  198. Jonathan, guns are a right whether you want them to be or not. This is objective reality, not your vision of butterflies and puppies should guns be gone.
    1
  199. mjf1001, we should always seek to keep our emotions in check, no matter what. We're not going to be able to have a discussion if you will only let someone finish who's saying what you want to hear.
    1
  200.  @ycylchgames  I'm not right-wing. I just hate CNN, and I don't trust them to deliver the truth. No one should. They are one of the most biased news stations out there. In fact, in polls, those who watch CNN rate among the lowest as far as being accurately informed.
    1
  201. Esme, just because you feel free doesn't mean you are. The average US citizen doesn't spend their day wringing their hands about encountering a person with a gun. That's just in your mind of what the other side must be like. You're only free in your mind, but in objective reality, you have given up your freedom.
    1
  202. Totah Sam, I not only simply said that you don't know what you're talking about, but I specifically explained why you don't know what you're talking about. These are not NRA talking points. In fact, I've never heard the NRA say these things I've said. And you can't just summarily dismiss the philosophy behind the founding of the government and the Federalist Papers written by the people instrumental in the Constitution's writing, because that's exactly what gives the Constitution its context. The Bill of Rights are all natural rights, and the government has no power to infringe on any of these items and so much more. The Second Amendment doesn't say that "the people have the right", it says, "the right of the people". This is not a granting of rights that didn't exist before government, but this is a recognition of rights that exist by the very nature of being human. You're not seeking to take our country back; you're seeking to do what is an objectively immoral thing. This isn't a point of view issue, this is objectivity.
    1
  203. Totah Sam, if you had something of value to add, you would have said it rather than whatever that nonsense is that you posted. Most people, when they have no defense actually concede. You, on the other hand, just stubbornly and stupidly continue believing what you want to believe despite being presented with arguments you can't argue against other than by summary dismissal.
    1
  204. Totah Sam, you said what you wanted to say, but you listened to nothing it seems.
    1
  205. I never called you a commie or tonto. Keep track of who says what. You have a beef with Joe Bloggs being racist, not me. Joe Bloggs, or anyone like him, definitely isn't my "buddy". This is like me saying, "You know who also believed in gun control? HITLER!" However, I know that's logically fallacious and you should too. Natural rights is in no one's power to infringe on. Just the same as it wasn't in the power of the United States to take your land, you, nor anyone else, has the right to disarm anyone else outside of the due process of law. I'm not ignoring what you're saying -- I'm addressing it quite directly with providence. That's why I'm referencing The Federalist Papers, philosophies that lay out objective political morality (rather than a subjective view of morality), and actually explaining exactly what the preamble of the Second Amendment is referencing and the wording of the operative clause. If you don't see how this is a logical and direct rebuttal to your statements, then I'm not sure what to tell you. You've yet to present an argument of why these guns don't belong in society. You're only presenting a repeated argumentum ad lapidem fallacy.
    1
  206. Scott Dunlap, Obama was just taking responsibility for his own party's actions. Make no mistake: it was wholly the Democratic party's fault for the crash.
    1
  207. We'd actually know if she was going to actually answer the question if she wasn't constantly interrupted.
    1
  208. It is objectively immoral to infringe on an individual's natural rights who has not gone through due process of law and been found guilty of infringing on another individual's natural rights. The government is here to protect natural rights by punishing those who would seek to infringe on those natural rights. It's not here to keep you safe. Liberty is also inherently dangerous. Liberty is the only moral stance, objectively.
    1
  209. StressFreeCity, I'm not personally against developing a social democracy, but healthcare isn't a natural right. Healthcare involves someone else taking care of you. If they don't want to take care of you, they don't have to, and you have no right to put them into servitude. This makes it inarguably not a natural right. Self defense is a natural right, as is the acquisition and ownership of guns (among anything else you can acquire and own through mutually agreeable terms between the original owner and the purchaser). This is why it's easier to get a gun than it is to get healthcare.
    1
  210. You don't remember Clinton rocketing Baghdad for not complying with UN weapons inspectors and the issue of WMD's prior to exiting office? Operation Desert Fox? Operation Desert Thunder? No? Ok...
    1