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

  1. 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
  2. Liberty is unsafe. You purchase safety with liberty. You have no right to purchase safety with my liberty.
    2
  3. 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
  4. Billy Badass, you need to look up what infringe means.
    2
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. allgoo19, subjective opinions should never be the basis on authorization to exercise a natural right.
    2
  8. 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
  9. Mary Empire, natural rights as a whole are more important than any person.
    2
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Derrell J. Thompkins, if that were the case, then the armed resource officer at Parkland must have hampered those kids' education, right?
    2
  15. Arachnoscribe, thank you. Some people seem to really not understand how dangerous the world really is.
    2
  16. 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
  17. Lucy's Mom, it's sad that you take such delight in trampling on people's natural rights.
    2
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Abe, one last thing: You have a right to defend yourself. Stop bitching and use it and expect others to use it too.
    2
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. alex And Australia banned guns, and they've had mass shootings. Apparently there seems to be little to no correlation.
    1
  24. 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
  25. Kenneth Pittman I appreciate you for addressing that bit of bigotry on his part. I didn't have the patience for it.
    1
  26. OurWorld, just because you don't like him doesn't mean it's alright to ignore due diligence and fall for confirmation bias.
    1
  27. This ought to be good.
    1
  28. "Need"? Where's the existential threat to the nation that calls for "need"?
    1
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. RedHoodAssassin3, 30 - 100-year-olds are right more often than those that come before in age.
    1
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. Night Channels, you can't amend away the Bill of Rights.
    1
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. Starx8591, to say there are no natural rights is to say that there's no existence without government.
    1
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. How dare you think you can trample on other people's natural rights, kiddo? What makes you think that's moral?
    1