Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "Florida student to NRA and Trump: 'We call BS'" video.

  1. 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
  2. "Her arguments are strong and water-tight" No they weren't.
    9
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Samantha, you dare me to tell what to the parents?
    4
  9. 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
  10. ​ @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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Mark Keller, people who are talking about disarming the public are people like Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Jan Schakowsky.
    3
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. "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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. We have guns for killing. That's their purpose. That's why we keep them. We don't keep them as finger warmers.
    3
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Lawmakers don't have legitimate and moral power to legislate guns.
    2
  25. Stop grandstanding against people's rights, and there will be nothing to defend against.
    2
  26. "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
  27. She's not smart. She's just an unwitting pawn.
    2
  28. Liberty is unsafe. You purchase safety with liberty. You have no right to purchase safety with my liberty.
    2
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. allgoo19, subjective opinions should never be the basis on authorization to exercise a natural right.
    2
  32. 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
  33. Lucy's Mom, it's sad that you take such delight in trampling on people's natural rights.
    2
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. Abe, one last thing: You have a right to defend yourself. Stop bitching and use it and expect others to use it too.
    2
  37. 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
  38. "Need"? Where's the existential threat to the nation that calls for "need"?
    1
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. "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
  44. "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
  45. 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
  46. Phoebe, congratulations. Anecdotal evidence to refute my claim... No wonder you're still a Democrat.
    1
  47. "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
  48. "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
  49. Lauren, how does being against having everyone's rights trampled on in any way suggest that there's no compassion? Think.
    1
  50. Jacob, unless he does the shooting, he can't be held accountable. Individual responsibility.
    1
  51. 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
  52. Kay Foley, giving up individual rights and liberty is never the answer.
    1
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. Constituent, and that's why we punish those who hit you with a bullet.
    1
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. Istvan, many on the left here would love to ban guns, yes.
    1
  65. Elheru, except it does happen still. Monash University shooting, the police HQ shooting, the Sydney Hostage Crisis....
    1
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. 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
  69. Alexis, no one's been able to eliminate mass shootings.
    1
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. Beltran Village, natural rights are never outdated.
    1
  73. 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
  74. Yailen Trenhs, if we can't trust the government, who controls the guns?
    1
  75. 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
  76. 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
  77. 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
  78. 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
  79. Totah Sam, you said what you wanted to say, but you listened to nothing it seems.
    1
  80. 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
  81. 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