Guns As A " God-given Right"

[havok579257]

It is immoral for any one or group to have Weapons of Mass Destruction like Nukes, or bio-chemical weapons.

 

 

absolutely.  Its immoral for any person or groups or people, no matter how many to have these weapons.

[havok579257]

You have many of what my instructor would call "unsubstantiated articles"

 

I don't think ANYONE is "bound" to make a mistake more than anyone else.  Yes, those who are multitasking are more prone to mistakes, but what are we talking about.  Again, I gave you the example of what is industry standard in a bank.  A bank associate is expected to run their drawer to the 1 cent place perfectly, help all customers, give lollies to children and bones to doggies in the drivethru, step back to an office when someone needs a mortgage, or to open an account or to pay off a car loan.  In thousands of banks in America, these men and woman manage to do all of this and still perfectly manage change.

 

If one can manage change, one can certainly manage a gun. 

 

Every job as qualifications.  Most of these admins now have to speak Spanish.  What happens if they aren't comfortable speaking Spanish...well then there's the door.  There is no reason they can't be trained to carry a gun and learn the responsibility.  I was a cashiere at a gas station.  I'd of been very happy to carry a gun, and I would of used it responsibly and not left it around all willy nilly.

 

Not every school can afford a guard, and if they can afford a guard, thats what?  One guard to 500-2000 people?  I'd raise my odds.  Janitors, secretaries, principal.  Now there's several guns in the school.

 

Accidents happen at home because of carelessness or stupidity.  However, there is no evidence that the accidents with guns take more lives than accidents of tripping, slipping, drowning, electrocution, furniture falling on a child, etc.  One should not take guns away from the general public anymore than they should take away the backyard pool.  Statistically, a child is hundreds of times more likely to die in the pool than by a gun.  Both because of carelessness.  Yet no one is questioning people's right to own pools.

 

 

 

 

 

i don't like charts like these at all because they schew the numbers.  More children are around motor vehicles than guns by a large margin.  So its statistically going to be a higher number.  Now if everyone who drove a vehicle also carried a gun at all times, then rate of accidental deaths of children by guns would increase.

 

 

So now your equaiting giving suckers to children as multi tasking comparable to an administrator at a school.  Guess I didn't figure someone with a normal IQ could ever have problems handing out suckers to children.

 

Any school can afford guards.  Do you know how much money is wasted a year by schools.  Do you know how much americans pay in taxes or tuition a year that is wasted.  Paying an armed guard or 2 is easily possible. Also it comes back to common sense measures.  All doors stay locked at all times, you need to buzz in all visitors and security checks them out first, they go through metal detectors.  Those things with 2 security guards will stop intruders from killing innocents more than arming numerous people and not following common sense ways for saftey.

[Winchester]

and when was i ok with millions of innocents killed by the government?  are we now just saying stuff just because we can when there is no truth to it?  its always funny to listen to outlandish claims with absolutely no point to them.

 

Let's see

 

1. not for murder of innocents by government

2. not for governments having WMD's

3. for reduction in military arms for all governments

4. just because one supports the notion that government is not 100% evil does not mean they condone all government actions

5. believe in the right to bear arms but that does not mean i believe you or any other citizen should have access to WMD's because they claim they need WMD's for self defense

 

I think these are fair enough. My minor quibble about WMDs (that the term is indistinct) is not enough for me to argue.

 

We agree here. Pop the cork on some champagne.

[Ice_nine]

It is immoral for any one or group to have Weapons of Mass Destruction like Nukes, or bio-chemical weapons.

 

even Murica? :cry:

[Winchester]

No I am familiar with weapons and you carry your gun properly.  Not saying the vast majority don't.  What I am saying is not everyone does and that's when mistakes happen and given how many people would needed to be armed just across america, its bound to happen that someone will make a mistake.  All I advocate for is that we hire security guards instead of arm adminstrators.  I am not against guns for safety, I would just rather have common sense measures for safety and someone who's entire job is security of staff and students as opposed to someone running around all day and multi tasking 50 different things.

 

Although shouldn't the school have the right to ban firearms if they want to?  Should they be forced to hire someone who carries a gun?  Should they be allowed to hire someone who adheres to what the employer wants?  Would it be any different if they were forced to hire someone who refused to ever dress professional for the job even though it was a requirement?

If someone wants to ban something on their private property, I believe that's fine. I don't bother with rules about proper signage, either. Technically, if someone puts up a sign that doesn't conform to the law, or fails to put up a sign at all entrances, you can legally carry on the property. It's enough for me that a property owner makes the request. There's a coffee shop that has a sign (it's displayed properly). I still choose to go there. I like the coffee, the people are nice and it's a family owned operation. I consider it a silly request, since it will not deter those who wish to initiate violence, but it is what it is.

 

 

I'm not talking about employees, I'm talking about taxpayers. I don't advocate arming teachers. I advocate not threatening people with the initiation of violence. I have no desire to pay to lock some teacher up because he or she carried a firearm onto school property. I think the very notion is barbaric. If someone brought something on my property that I personally didn't want there, I can imagine asking them to leave; I cannot imagine throwing them in a cage over it. 

[havok579257]

If someone wants to ban something on their private property, I believe that's fine. I don't bother with rules about proper signage, either. Technically, if someone puts up a sign that doesn't conform to the law, or fails to put up a sign at all entrances, you can legally carry on the property. It's enough for me that a property owner makes the request. There's a coffee shop that has a sign (it's displayed properly). I still choose to go there. I like the coffee, the people are nice and it's a family owned operation. I consider it a silly request, since it will not deter those who wish to initiate violence, but it is what it is.

 

 

I'm not talking about employees, I'm talking about taxpayers. I don't advocate arming teachers. I advocate not threatening people with the initiation of violence. I have no desire to pay to lock some teacher up because he or she carried a firearm onto school property. I think the very notion is barbaric. If someone brought something on my property that I personally didn't want there, I can imagine asking them to leave; I cannot imagine throwing them in a cage over it. 

 

 

well i agree.  i think the teacher should be fired on the spot for not adhearing to the school policy/rules of conduct for employees but they should not be thrown in jail unless obviously they were threatening harm with the gun.    

[Winchester]

well i agree.  i think the teacher should be fired on the spot for not adhearing to the school policy/rules of conduct for employees but they should not be thrown in jail unless obviously they were threatening harm with the gun.    

Firing a public employee takes a lot of effort, around here. Suspension first, then discipline, including termination. Then lawyering, then rehiring iwth backpay. 

[NotreDame]

Firing a public employee takes a lot of effort, around here. Suspension first, then discipline, including termination. Then lawyering, then rehiring iwth backpay running for Mayor of DC. 

 

Fixed!
 

[havok579257]

Firing a public employee takes a lot of effort, around here. Suspension first, then discipline, including termination. Then lawyering, then rehiring iwth backpay. 

 

oh i agree.  its due to unions which although good in idea, over reach their power and keep bad people still employed. 

[Winchester]

oh i agree.  its due to unions which although good in idea, over reach their power and keep bad people still employed. 

 

Solidarity is important. Preferably all mankind, but in practice, smaller groups must practice it. People tend to choose flocks. If a union holds its members to a high standard, it can become an asset not only to members, but to employers and consumers. This is my opinion as a union member.

 

Pretty sure our sustained agreement has brought about the apocalypse.

[Socrates]

I honestly do not know just what I believe in concerning guns. I do know that I'm a good shot and gunpowder smells amazing.

I do believe in the right to self-defense. I'm just not certain guns are the only way to defend yourself. Going off the example of being able to defend against the U.S. armed forces, we're honestly screwed if all we have are guns. If the right to bear arms was put in place to keep the government at odds with us, doesn't that mean in this day and age civilians should also have the right to own tanks, B-16's, frag grenades, and drones? Warfare has moved far beyond just firearms. There are enough nuclear warheads in the world to destroy the entire earth sixteen times. I don't think the Founding Fathers would have stopped at giving us the right to own firearms if they were alive today.

 

The founding fathers actually feared a standing army, which they saw as a means for the state to oppress the citizens (as had been done by Britain and other European powers).  They favored state militias made up of well-armed, well-trained citizens who owned their own weapons.  The militia was to consist of all male citizens capable of fighting.  It's hard to use the military to oppress the citizenry, when the military is the citizenry.

 

I agree with you about the founding fathers, and agree to an essentially unlimited right to bear arms - though I'd personally draw the line at weapons of mass destruction.

 

Most of today's political debate over second amendment rights doesn't concern "extreme" examples like privately-owned nukes, or even personal tanks or attack helicopters, but rather certain types of rather ordinary rifles that certain politicians deem too scary-looking for civilian ownership.

 

 

If you think you, or most other ordinary people, can defend yourself against a serious armed attacker using only your flippin' sweet ninja skillz, you've probably been playing too many Batman video games.  Guns help level the playing field, and give those physically weaker, including women and the elderly, a chance to defend themselves against the physically strong.  Remember, God created all men, but Sam Colt made them equal.

 

In short, the right to own and bear arms (which includes guns) is intimately tied to the right to self-defense.

And maybe I misread it, but your original posts seemed to ridicule the entire idea of a right to own and bear arms.

[Socrates]

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold viewed their getting guns as a "God given right". 

 

Of course, they were both underaged and used people to get them, though, so.

 

Also they killed people.

 

:|

 

From what I've heard, Harris and Klebold didn't give any consideration to God, period.

 

 

But perhaps if others were carrying guns on the premises, the body count might have been a lot lower.

[PhuturePriest]

The founding fathers actually feared a standing army, which they saw as a means for the state to oppress the citizens (as had been done by Britain and other European powers).  They favored state militias made up of well-armed, well-trained citizens who owned their own weapons.  The militia was to consist of all male citizens capable of fighting.  It's hard to use the military to oppress the citizenry, when the military is the citizenry.

 

I agree with you about the founding fathers, and agree to an essentially unlimited right to bear arms - though I'd personally draw the line at weapons of mass destruction.

 

Most of today's political debate over second amendment rights doesn't concern "extreme" examples like privately-owned nukes, or even personal tanks or attack helicopters, but rather certain types of rather ordinary rifles that certain politicians deem too scary-looking for civilian ownership.

 

 

If you think you, or most other ordinary people, can defend yourself against a serious armed attacker using only your flippin' sweet ninja skillz, you've probably been playing too many Batman video games.  Guns help level the playing field, and give those physically weaker, including women and the elderly, a chance to defend themselves against the physically strong.  Remember, God created all men, but Sam Colt made them equal.

 

In short, the right to own and bear arms (which includes guns) is intimately tied to the right to self-defense.

And maybe I misread it, but your original posts seemed to ridicule the entire idea of a right to own and bear arms.

 

Thank you for the excellent post. I was admittedly at the time very confused about what I thought concerning gun ownership, mostly because I was thinking of myself in my living situations. I live in a very non-homicidal State, in a great part of the non-homicidal State, and I am of course a young man around the peak of my physical shape (this isn't to say I believe I can stop bullets with my ninja stare.) However, when you brought to mind people who aren't as physically capable like the elderly, I realized I was looking at gun rights in the narrowest scope I can look through -- my life.

[ardillacid]

 I am of course a young man around the peak of my physical shape 

so many sads and feels

[PhuturePriest]

so many sads and feels

 

Peak physical condition, emotions and hormones as erratic as a crazy straw.