|
|
#201
11-17-2005, 07:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Brand Spankin\' New Glock 19
[ QUOTE ]
"When in our country's history has the government turned things into police state? That's just paranoia." They couldn't when the people have guns. Other nations have gone through this though, first by disarming the masses. I think you have heard of the USSR. "The subject of my post was concealed carry. Try to stay on that topic. I don't want to take anyone's guns away, I just don't want everyone to be walking around armed." Than this does not even apply to the Second Amendment, but one's natural right to defend themselves from harm. Concealed carry does this. You cannot allow a person not to defend themselves. You can only disallow them from assaulting others. [/ QUOTE ] No matter what your definition of "natural right" is (and it's suspect whatever it may be, considering your posts in the homosexuality thread), carrying concealed modern weaponry cannot logically be in that definition. If you are claiming that self defense is a "natural right" then I might agree; but having any means of self defense you desire at your disposal cannot be considered a "natural right". Anyway, I'd like to hear your definition of "natural right". 
|
|
#203
11-17-2005, 08:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Brand Spankin\' New Glock 19
[ QUOTE ]
No. My right to self-defense is severly infringed upon if the state bans me from using an effective method of self-defense. How would you feel if the state said "From now on, the only condoms you can use will have holes in them." [/ QUOTE ] This is a horrible analogy. Is there some inherent harm from using condoms without holes that isn't present in condoms with holes. If not, then this analogy doesn't work.
|
|
#205
11-17-2005, 08:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Brand Spankin\' New Glock 19
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently you think armed robbers are all nice, well adjusted people who never shoot anyone if they get what they want, and that the way to deal with them is to be a good victim and reward them for their antisocial act [/ QUOTE ] Please stop twisting my words here. I'm just saying that by pulling a gun on an armed robber, you are guaranteeing that the robber will also resort to violence. I would rather not put this situation in the hands of untrained citizens. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this. [ QUOTE ] I sincerely hope somebody shoots you after you give them your wallet and let them rape your wife and your daughter. [/ QUOTE ] Is this comment supposed to convince me that people who are pro CCW are well adjusted? If so, you've done a horrible job. Nice job verifying the sterotypical mentality of a gun owner. Thanks.
|
|
#206
11-17-2005, 08:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Brand Spankin\' New Glock 19
[ QUOTE ]
Than this does not even apply to the Second Amendment, but one's natural right to defend themselves from harm. Concealed carry does this. You cannot allow a person not to defend themselves. You can only disallow them from assaulting others. [/ QUOTE ] You have to draw the line somewhere. We can't have people walking around with grenade launchers and automatic machine guns. What if somebody feels they need these to properly defend themselves? The key word is also "yourself". In the examples that ace provided of people using their guns in certain situations, a few were not even cases where they were defending themselves. They were actually taking the law into their own hands and stepping into dangerous situations involving other innocent people. This is what a vigilante is, and it could become a problem.
|
|
#207
11-17-2005, 10:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Brand Spankin\' New Glock 19
"We can't have people walking around with grenade launchers and automatic machine guns."
Actually, why not? As long as they don't use them indiscriminately. We allow people to drive transport trucks which can do a hell of a lot more damage if they want to. There are some crazies who have plowed into crowds of people with cars. But actually the most dangerous "weapon" of them all are matches. Setting a little fire at the right place can lead to incredible loss of life. It is shocking to imagine how much damage we can do with everyday items if we put our mind to it, like MacGyver! The line should be drawn at area weapons which kill indiscriminately. But any weapon that can be aimed and controlled by the user that does not lead to mass damage should be legal. "it could become a problem" The natural right to self defence can never be superseded by abuses of the same. Just like freedom of movement. But even so, we have millions of people already carrying concealed and thousands of incidents of self defence. Statistical anomalies aside, fears of vigilante mayhem have been proven false.
|
|
#208
11-18-2005, 12:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Brand Spankin\' New Glock 19
[ QUOTE ]
The line should be drawn at area weapons which kill indiscriminately. But any weapon that can be aimed and controlled by the user that does not lead to mass damage should be legal. [/ QUOTE ] Says you.
|
|
#210
11-18-2005, 03:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Brand Spankin\' New Glock 19
A natural right or natural law would be defined as the ability to apply the distinct emotions and instincts common to man and animals. In this case the motive for self preservation.
Of course one can use modern weaponry because we have the right to use force to stop or kill an unjust agressor. We must use something at least equal to what the agressor is using to prevent his attack.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
