Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "Shooting survivor confronts NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch" video.

  1. 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
  2. And given a rifle and sent to war.
    5
  3. Mike Faller, you have no power to infringe on the natural rights of another person. Just stop, because you're being objectively immoral.
    4
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Flower Child, there doesn't have to be a point. A natural right isn't something you need to explain to exercise.
    3
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Billy Badass, you need to look up what infringe means.
    2
  17. 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
  18. Mary Empire, natural rights as a whole are more important than any person.
    2
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Clara Clearwater, natural rights are objective reality. It can never be an outdated idea.
    1
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Steven, natural rights are in no one's power to restrict on any other individual who has done no wrong.
    1
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. Alex, what do you mean by "stricter"? I personally don't think background checks should exist.
    1
  31. Chapel, I like that quote.
    1
  32. Victoria, 30,000 dying a year is not an existential threat to the US. Stop acting like it is.
    1
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. Casey, you're the one scared of people being unrestrained in the natural right of owning guns.
    1
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. Mary Empire, I notice you didn't respond to me. Is that because I broke your stereotyping?
    1
  45. Mary Empire, that doesn't even make sense. You're just avoiding addressing the argument.
    1
  46. 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
  47. Mo Ajeb, there were two students who said it was scripted. Did both state they lie?
    1
  48. 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
  49. We'd actually know if she was going to actually answer the question if she wasn't constantly interrupted.
    1
  50. 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
  51. 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