- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The reason the right sucks at defending the 2A and other natural rights
Posted on 5/29/22 at 9:02 am
Posted on 5/29/22 at 9:02 am
We always give into premises the left sets and debate on their terms. I am guilty of it quite a bit myself.
How often does a 2A debate devolve into, "well look at these statistics in Chicago or other gun restrictive cities", or "the good guy with the gun story and this is why we need guns", or "gun laws don't work to stop violence"
While all these are probably true and I have used them quite a bit. The problem is we are now debating our "natural rights" on the merits of statistics or whether they are effective at accomplishing some goal or not (in this instance, stopping mass shootings). I am happy to discuss ways to stop these tragedies, but the 2A is not on the table, end of story.
If we wanted to, we could just simply go with a complete China style gun seizure and ban all guns, just as they did. China doesn't have mass shootings by citizens, if that's the singular goal, it can be achieved that way. But it comes with the caveat that you are no longer a free and sovereign citizen, you have now become property of the state.
So back to the original point, the main purpose of the 2A is to be able to kill and overthrow tyrants, that is it. It also comes with benefits of self defense (which we all have a right to) as well as ability to harvest our own food through hunting (which we all have a right to). But the main purpose is to be a check on those who wish to enslave American Citizens and remove the Constitution. So they know in the back of their head, that if they go too far, it may not end well for them.
How often does a 2A debate devolve into, "well look at these statistics in Chicago or other gun restrictive cities", or "the good guy with the gun story and this is why we need guns", or "gun laws don't work to stop violence"
While all these are probably true and I have used them quite a bit. The problem is we are now debating our "natural rights" on the merits of statistics or whether they are effective at accomplishing some goal or not (in this instance, stopping mass shootings). I am happy to discuss ways to stop these tragedies, but the 2A is not on the table, end of story.
If we wanted to, we could just simply go with a complete China style gun seizure and ban all guns, just as they did. China doesn't have mass shootings by citizens, if that's the singular goal, it can be achieved that way. But it comes with the caveat that you are no longer a free and sovereign citizen, you have now become property of the state.
So back to the original point, the main purpose of the 2A is to be able to kill and overthrow tyrants, that is it. It also comes with benefits of self defense (which we all have a right to) as well as ability to harvest our own food through hunting (which we all have a right to). But the main purpose is to be a check on those who wish to enslave American Citizens and remove the Constitution. So they know in the back of their head, that if they go too far, it may not end well for them.
This post was edited on 5/29/22 at 9:24 am
31
Posted on 5/29/22 at 9:04 am to burger bearcat
Good post.
Never accept the Marxist problematizing of your rights.
Never accept the Marxist problematizing of your rights.
Posted on 5/29/22 at 9:05 am to burger bearcat
The part you’re missing is that there is no debate.
Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Shall not be infringed.
Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Shall not be infringed.
Posted on 5/29/22 at 9:12 am to burger bearcat
Another problem is that as soon as you label anything a “natural” right, you’ve assumed a logically incoherent and indefensible position built entirely on baseless presupposition.
It’s your right because it’s an enumerated right in the constitution of the nation you both currently live in. That alone ends the debate from a legal standpoint. No need to get into the weeds. They can either try and change it by the process laid out or shut the frick up.
It’s your right because it’s an enumerated right in the constitution of the nation you both currently live in. That alone ends the debate from a legal standpoint. No need to get into the weeds. They can either try and change it by the process laid out or shut the frick up.
This post was edited on 5/29/22 at 9:13 am
Posted on 5/29/22 at 9:13 am to burger bearcat
The solution to every problem is not taking rights away. That seems to be the left's answer to everything... and then those same problems continue to get worse.
Posted on 5/29/22 at 9:29 am to burger bearcat
the fact is the R's fight back just enough to stay employed and give an illusion of push back. if you really want to know who they are research how they vote. some lazy fricks in congress don't even vote.
Posted on 5/29/22 at 9:30 am to burger bearcat
quote:
So back to the original point, the main purpose of the 2A is to be able to kill and overthrow tyrants, that is it. It also comes with benefits of self defense (which we all have a right to) as well as ability to harvest our own food through hunting (which we all have a right to). But the main purpose is to be a check on those who wish to enslave American Citizens and remove the Constitution. So they know in the back of their head, that if they go too far, it may not end well for them.
100%, but you know full well why The Right refuses to argue it from this point.
They...are...cowards.
Arguing from this point would be having to defend the position when everyone in the press starts calling you a crazy person for daring to think our own government would oppress you. Even though it's EXACTLY WHY The Founders made they we had the right in the first place, very few have the balls to actually stand on that ground and defend it, because they are afraid of sounding crazy.
And because they refuse to do that, as you say, the argument like always has shifted in the direction of having it on the turf of The Left.
Posted on 5/29/22 at 9:37 am to burger bearcat
So what is the anti gun nuts stance on hunting guns? I never see that mentioned. Do they really expect that all guns should be obsolete? That will never ever happen. Hunting is big business.
That ain't chicken feed.
quote:
How much is the hunting industry worth?
On the tax revenue side, hunter dollars generate $5.3 billion federally and $3.4 billion in state and local taxes.
Overall, hunting in the United States generates $25 billion dollars in retail sales and more than $17 billion dollars in salaries and wages each year
That ain't chicken feed.
Posted on 5/29/22 at 9:40 am to burger bearcat
The right has been very effective at defending Second Amendment rights. We have this debate every time a mass shooting occurs and two weeks from now it will retreat into the mist. You'll have opportunists like Beth O'Rourke grandstand and by mid July he will be forgotten . So long as you have a 6-3 conservative advantage your 2nd Amendment protections will stay intact with little threat. We'll have this debate and both sides will yell about rights and responsibilities, mental health tags....we'll float out ideas for limits on military style weapons, etc.. This is an argument that will continue every time there is a shooting like this. With 400 million firearms in the hands of Americans, you can't ban the weapons....you cannot even stop Ammo production.
The left can rail against the NRA. The right can rail about mental health checks. Both sides politicians know there is not a damn thing you can do unfortunately. Disturbed whack jobs will find a way to get guns....or worse. Go ahead outlaw " assault Weapons" a .995 carbine can do the same amount of damage like at Columbine.
The left can rail against the NRA. The right can rail about mental health checks. Both sides politicians know there is not a damn thing you can do unfortunately. Disturbed whack jobs will find a way to get guns....or worse. Go ahead outlaw " assault Weapons" a .995 carbine can do the same amount of damage like at Columbine.
This post was edited on 5/29/22 at 9:53 am
Posted on 5/29/22 at 9:53 am to burger bearcat
quote:
So back to the original point, the main purpose of the 2A is to be able to kill and overthrow tyrants, that is it. It also comes with benefits of self defense (which we all have a right to) as well as ability to harvest our own food through hunting (which we all have a right to). But the main purpose is to be a check on those who wish to enslave American Citizens and remove the Constitution. So they know in the back of their head, that if they go too far, it may not end well for them.
Watch any Sunday morning news propaganda show this morning and it’s all about banning AR-15 style rifles. Never mind the statistics show deaths from AR-15 rifles each year is less than 1% of the total deaths from firearms. The over reactions and knee jerk reactions to every crisis in the US from our political class is becoming a serious problem for the Americans people. Dims don’t want to truly drill down and determine why these mass murderers do these heinous crimes, they understand it will likely be an indictment of their failed progressive policies….their solution is to always chip away at personal freedoms……every damn time.
Posted on 5/29/22 at 10:00 am to ezride25
quote:
The part you’re missing is that there is no debate.
Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Shall not be infringed.
There is a conversation to be had and needed. The right often says what you just said but we all know it isn't so cut and dry. The left maintains their lunacy of wanting to take them away and spouting their misinformed drivel. We cannot get on a middle ground in this country at all.
Posted on 5/29/22 at 10:03 am to burger bearcat
The fundamental right isn't really about firearms. It is self-defense. Firearms are merely the means by which it is most efficient to exercise that right.
To say it another way, the anti-gun movement seeks to deprive women and minorities of the means to defend themselves against oppressors.
To say it another way, the anti-gun movement seeks to deprive women and minorities of the means to defend themselves against oppressors.
Posted on 5/29/22 at 10:08 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
The fundamental right isn't really about firearms. It is self-defense. Firearms are merely the means by which it is most efficient to exercise that right.
Very true. We also have to acknowledge that it is the most efficient way to commit these acts. I'm not for taking anything away but we need to accept that reality and act accordingly whether it is hardening schools, placing security, etc. Half the country wants to call firearms a problem but, even if correct, they are here to stay. You aren't getting rid of them so you have to think of something else.
Posted on 5/29/22 at 10:25 am to jmarto1
quote:
we all know it isn't so cut and dry.
Yeah, no. It is actually.
The only conversation the left is interested in is one that ends in subjugation. And you’re carrying water for them with this nonsense.
Don’t tread on me.
Posted on 5/29/22 at 11:04 am to burger bearcat
quote:
they know in the back of their head
of course they know it - it is the only thing that has prevented them from establishing a tyranny already.
It they thought individual ownership of firearms was at all beneficial to their aims, they would have written a law requiring it, and actually distributed them via welfare cards.
Posted on 5/29/22 at 11:11 am to KiwiHead
quote:
The right has been very effective at defending Second Amendment rights.
If you ignore the slow deterioration of them over time.
Today, we have far fewer gun rights than we did 100 years ago. That's because The Left has slowly eroded them as The Right has made compromise after compromise to appease them.
The Left does not want "common sense gun laws." That's a slogan to lull middle of the road people to sleep. They want full confiscation and removal of all firearms in the hands of private citizens. They know they can not do this by obtaining a Constitutional Amendment, so they chip away at them year after year, gleefully awaiting the next "tragic" gun event (as opposed to the countless gun deaths caused by inner city crime they could glom onto if they wanted) so they can take another bite at the apple.
Posted on 5/29/22 at 11:16 am to burger bearcat
No question the goal of the left is to ban private ownership of guns. What the right needs to understand is the left will be back for more once the “solutions” being considered now don’t work.
Posted on 5/29/22 at 11:31 am to GeauxTigerTM
Please, I can get a weapon quite easily today as I could 30-35 years ago. The only thing I probably would not do is drive around with a gun in a rack. But I can get a concealed carry easier today than 1992. I certainly can get my hands on an AR 15 or AK 47 easier today then 30 years ago.
What? You pissed off about background checks.
What? You pissed off about background checks.
Posted on 5/29/22 at 12:53 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Please, I can get a weapon quite easily today as I could 30-35 years ago. The only thing I probably would not do is drive around with a gun in a rack. But I can get a concealed carry easier today than 1992. I certainly can get my hands on an AR 15 or AK 47 easier today then 30 years ago.
What? You pissed off about background checks.
I dont recall the exception in the Constitution about background checks.
Posted on 5/29/22 at 1:03 pm to burger bearcat
So you want a POS convicted criminal getting their hands on a weapon? So I fill out a 4473 the guy at the gun place runs it. I come up clean and 2 minutes later I'm driving home with my purchase. My right to defend myself or to bear arms is not in the least bit infringed.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News