Anyway, Do the people who talk about the "Second Amendment right" really want us to use guns against the "tyrants" who are taking our rights away?
Does someone like a Mark Kessler want to suggest that we use guns against the forces of oppression?
Monday, August 19, 2013
Does this make sense?
Whoever did this forgot "reproductive rights".
Anyway, Do the people who talk about the "Second Amendment right" really want us to use guns against the "tyrants" who are taking our rights away?
Does someone like a Mark Kessler want to suggest that we use guns against the forces of oppression?
Anyway, Do the people who talk about the "Second Amendment right" really want us to use guns against the "tyrants" who are taking our rights away?
Does someone like a Mark Kessler want to suggest that we use guns against the forces of oppression?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. Talk about requiring ideological purity--but seriously, don't you imagine that reproductive rights are included in the ones named? In fact, naming voting rights here is redundant.
ReplyDelete2. Once again, we see the stereotype that it must be only a particular brand of Republicans who support gun rights that strongly. The notion that American politics can be described on a one-dimensional spectrum is simplistic. In fact, a multi-dimensional space is what is required.
No, it doesnt. It would make sense to support all rights.
ReplyDeleteI support:
ReplyDelete1. The right to vote.
2. The right to reproduce (or not, at your choice).
3. The right to express yourself
4. The right to believe in and worship all, some or none of the gods of your choosing.
5. The right to own (or not) and carry (or not) the means of self defense of your choosing.
6. The right to be treated just like everyone else, especially by the government.
And most importantly, the right to be left the fvck alone, UNLESS AND UNTIL you try to infringe on MY right to be left the fvck alone.
Moonshine
How about the right to not have to worry about which one of you gun nuts is going to go berserk next? How about the right to go out with the family to a restaurant or the movies and not have to wonder if the gun owners in the crowd are responsible and safe?
DeleteHow about the right to not have to worry about which Muslim is going to go Jihadi next? How about the right to drive down the road and not have to wonder if the car next to you is going to side swipe you and knock you under the semi-truck? How about the right to know, that you won't be mugged by a knife wielding maniac? How about the right to know that you won't be attacked by a wild animal when hiking?
DeleteYour two examples are as foolish and unenforceable as every one of these others, and a society that could and did enforce all of these would not be worth living in.
No, not foolish or unenforceable. By raising the bar on who can own and carry guns, we can have both things I mentioned. The way it is now, half of you guys are dangerous and irresponsible and should be disarmed. That fact inerferes with the pursuit of happiness of the rest of us.
DeleteSorry, Mike. Proclamations will not be deemed to be fact until supported by a preponderance of evidence.
DeleteMoonshine
Ah, the right to not worry and wonder... Constitutional amendment number 28i
DeleteActually, those things are included in the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness business. Of course, you're to blinded by pro-gun bias to ever consider such nonsense.
DeleteWhat about those other rights to worry that I mentioned? Do I have the right not to worry about Muslim Terrorists? Maybe we can carve out a small exception to the 1st amendment for Wahabi Islam since most of the terrorists come from it. I know I've heard that suggested many times over the past 12 years.
DeleteOr are you going to be so blinded by your devotion to your precious 1st Amendment to even consider my rights, and those of millions of Americans, to life and the pursuit of happiness without the dread of being blown up by some crazy Muslim?
MikeB: “Actually, those things are included in the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness business.”
DeleteSo you decided to pursue happiness by taking away other people’s liberty? That doesn’t work. It is in direct conflict with other rights. If murdering people makes you happy, you don’t have a right to pursue that either. That would deprive other people of life.
But note, it is the pursuit of happiness, not the right to be happy. Really, the founding fathers can’t help if you are still going to worry and wonder. What also makes you argument so porous is that your right to not worry about guns is immediately cancelled out by my right to not worry about gun control. Just like with the arguments that Tennessean provided, nobody would have any rights if everyone had the right to strip other people’s rights because they are worried- like if you worry that minorities will move into your neighborhood. This is why the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights make no mention of assuaging citizen’s anxieties.
What interferes with my pursuit of happiness is the laxity with which people can own and carry guns. So many of you are actually irresponsible and unfit, it's dangerous out there.
DeleteSo, I'm not talking about "taking away people's liberty" as you so ridiculously and exaggeratedly put it, I'm talking about raising the bar on gun ownership and ensuring that gun owners are responsible.
Aw, crap. When did we go back to 100% comment moderation?
ReplyDeleteMoonshine
Moderation was reintroduced when an antigunner got on here and decided that the most productive use of his time was to repeatedly slander Greg and I and to spice his comments up with graphic accusations regarding our sexual proclivities.
DeleteI'd say he's lost interest by now and hopefully Mike will lift the moderation soon.
As for your list, did you leave one out? The right to make your own damn drinks out of your own damn corn.
That's right, but I'm wondering if crazy Kevin is lurking. How 'bout we find out right now.
DeleteThink he is--see the Nuge video post from today.
DeleteStill, I'm willing to put up with some of his crap to keep the lines open.
Tennesean, it is my opinion that the right you cite would fall under the right to be left the fvck alone.
DeleteMoonshine
Indeed, sir, indeed.
Delete