The Core Problem to Murder by Firearms

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Driving motor vehicles is not a "right", but a privilege. It is a privilege granted to you by the generosity of the State. As a privilege it can be regulated and/or denied.

Yes...I saw a government official make such a claim on TV not too long ago. If driving a car is indeed a privilege...then this "priviledge" can be easily revoked on a nationwide scale...RIGHT? Do you suppose that the government can enact a future law whereby the driving a of car could be rendered "illegal"?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The two ideas are not mutually exclusive logically. The leftist media and dimwit politicians talk the loudest and control the public podium.

:

You said one thuing and presto chango, hoping no one would notice, contradicted yourself.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

That is why politicians want unarmed citizens. See the recent Hong Kong demonstrations stating the need for the "second Amendment".

It's no accident that all socialist and totalitarian states want unarmed citizens.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...I saw a government official make such a claim on TV not too long ago. If driving a car is indeed a privilege...then this "priviledge" can be easily revoked on a nationwide scale...RIGHT? Do you suppose that the government can enact a future law whereby the driving a of car could be rendered "illegal"?

Of course it can that is why it is a privilege granted by the State.

[Mulerider]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Do you suppose that the government can enact a future law whereby the driving a of car could be rendered "illegal"?

I can easily envision the advocates of a certain political philosophy dreaming of such a scenario...all to combat climate change, of course. Free public transportation as a new "right" for all!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Of course it can that is why it is a privilege granted by the State.

Or...for that matter, a right granted by the state can also be revoked. For example, the 2nd Amendment, theoretically, could be revoked by the rules of the Constitution. But of course, that isn't very likely to happen anytime soon, which is why the left wants to desperately handle gun ownership rights by mere statute to circumvent the constitutionally-ordained process.

Whatever the state giveth, the state can also take away-- whether it be a right or a privilege. To the secular state, the state is god.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Mulerider

I can easily envision the advocates of a certain political philosophy dreaming of such a scenario...all to combat climate change, of course. Free public transportation as a new "right" for all!

Enter my great idea for solar-powered skateboards.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Driving motor vehicles is not a "right", but a privilege. It is a privilege granted to you by the generosity of the State. As a privilege it can be regulated and/or denied.

Yeah Tom told me that too. However both rights and privileges still have to be controlled.

What about yelling fire in a crowded movie thereat, for the hell of it.? Is that a right also? Shouldn't we limit when using a "right" endangers other citizens right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

Not to mention school children being slaughtered every month?

Yeah, we have the right to buy them bulletproof back packs. No harm done. The invisible hand of the free market to the rescue. As long as we don't talk about it when a mass shortening happens......
Our prayers will do wonders.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

So.. you wanna start a thread about "Murder by Firearms"...but you want to keep the NRA out of it. Good luck!

Who did the NRA kill?

Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
Do you suppose that the government can enact a future law whereby the driving a of car could be rendered "illegal"?

Yes, at least on the interstates.

They are already planning on outlawing certain types of cars, ie, gas powered.

Not saying I agree, but it certainly is already in the cards among thse to the left or reality.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

Yeah Tom told me that too. However both rights and privileges still have tom be controlled.

What about yelling fire in a crowded movie thereat, for the hell of it.? Is that a right also? Shouldn't we limit when using a "right" endangers other citizens right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Not to mention school children slaughtered every month?

Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater is not a right or a privilege. Thus, it has no bearing on the discussion about its impact on rights.

Nobody has the right to harm other citizens, however, the right to own by itself is not a danger to other citizens. With that logic we wouldn't be allowed to own cars, motorcycles, bicycles, knives, etc. Think about it every time someone gets behind the driver's wheel of a car, on public right of ways, there is an inherent danger to his fellow citizens.

The standard has to be higher than endangering citizens, even for privileges.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Yeah Tom told me that too. However both rights and privileges still have to be controlled.

You mean like immigration? Or how 'bout voting rights?

What about yelling fire in a crowded movie thereat, for the hell of it.? Is that a right also? Shouldn't we limit when using a "right" endangers other citizens right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

Explain how we would limit a "WHEN"? Or did you really mean to say, "who"?

By the way, you still haven't answered my one-liner, which you mischaracterized in the Wal Mart as a rant. Do human beings have an inherent and unalienable human right to self-preservation/protection?

Why are you continually ducking a straight "yes" or "no" answer to this fundamentally important and pertinent question in this debate?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater is not a right or a privilege. Thus, it has no bearing on the discussion about its impact on rights.

Nobody has the right to harm other citizens, however, the right to own by itself is not a danger to other citizens. With that logic we wouldn't be allowed to own cars, motorcycles, bicycles, knives, etc. Think about it every time someone gets behind the driver's wheel of a car, on public right of ways, there is an inherent danger to his fellow citizens.

The standard has to be higher than endangering citizens, even for privileges.

Not to be picky...but I think it would be more accurate to say higher than the potential endangerment of citizens.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Tom

Who did the NRA kill?


Yes, at least on the interstates.

They are already planning on outlawing certain types of cars, ie, gas powered.

Not saying I agree, but it certainly is already in the cards among thse to the left or reality.

And I already have a viable alternative for cloudy days with my solar-powered skateboard idea: Sail-powered.

And in the event it's cloudy and no wind: Revert back to foot-powered. A 3-in-1 machine for all occasions.

[boxcar]

Teen arrested in fatal stabbing of boy that dozens filmed as he bled to death

An alleged fight over a girl involving over 50 teenagers has left a 16-year-old student dead after being stabbed in the chest and an 18-year-old student charged in his death while many of the other teens took videos of the victim dying rather than helping to save his life.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/teen-arres...opstories.html

Now, know some people like Hcap are going to wondering why I posted this knife story in thread about guns. Anyone who wonders at this will only prove he didn't read the opening article to this thread.

Anyway...my questions about this tragic event are these: Did the teen suspect in this murder have a CC Knife Permit? Since knives can be used to kill people like guns can be used to kill, should carrying a concealed knife be against the law? Should we have knife control laws, too?

But who here really believes that the cause to this 16 y.o's death was a knife? Wasn't another teenager behind the knife? And what about all the other teenagers who stood nonchalantly and complacently by, too busy capturing this poor kid's last breaths on their smart phones and watching him bleed out? Why didn't anyone run to help the dying teen? Why were they so obviously fascinated with his death, instead of looking to preserve his life?

What does all this say about the state of their hearts? Anything at all?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I mean like how wrong you were when you declared that I never asked you the gun-rights question on 9/17?



Learn to read. I never said people don't experience "shock". But I do claim that that isn't the primary reason for the utterly stupid gun narrative subsequently dumped on Americans by the leftist media and dimwit politicians.

Guns do not kill people! Period. You yourself have already admitted that no gun has ever ben charged with a crime of convicted of one. So, why the utterly intellectually-vacuous rhetoric focusing on guns?

Furthermore, why is it the ultimate aim of liberals to confiscate all privately-owned weapons (Australian style,for example) when all human beings have the inalienable right to self-preservation/protection?

Do you not agree that the root cause to all violence is a moral in nature?

I don't agree that the root cause of all violence is a moral in nature?

I'm also not sure that "...violence is a moral in nature" doesn't have a typo in it somewhere. Perhaps you meant "violence is amoral in nature," although that doesn't make much sense either. Animals are neither moral nor amoral in the same sense we are. They kill out of need - food or defense. Violence has a cause. It may be cultural, as Westerns suggest. The root cause of violence could be hate as an outgrowth of mental illness. Look at the BTK killer. Outwardly very moral. A killer nonetheless. Can you explain him using a moral argument?

It is not the ultimate aim of most on the left to confiscate all privately-owned weapons. Many people on the left hunt and use guns for protections. They don't want them confiscated. That's just the uninformed opinion of linear thinkers in the bubble.

I don't own a gun. I'm against guns for me. That doesn't make me a leftist.There is a lot of logic in the idea of registration, and the banning of bump stocks, large clips, and weapons of war. You can do that without banning hunting rifles and certain handguns. If you want to shoot military rifles, go to a range, rent one and shoot.