Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

StoneByStone said:
Not the point. If people can obtain guns illegally, that means they can also get abortions illegally, correct?
Click to expand...

Exactly what is your point? If any Law stopped criminals acts form existing...…..there would be no crime of murder with the first act of legislation making that act a crime. Crimes exist because Laws don't have the capacity to establish morality or eliminate anything. Laws simply identify what acts society defines as being unacceptable and immoral. Moral societies enact moral laws.....immoral societies make immoral laws. Criminals exist because FREE WILL exists. If you can rescind the right of self protection from the law abiding....then only the criminals will have guns to slaughter the sheep at will.....just like exampled in the acts of mass murder, always perpetrated upon the defenseless.
 
StoneByStone said:
I didn't say it did. The reason we have those laws is to preserve certain species and the ecosystem. Not because destroying a clump of cells in a panda is murder.
Click to expand...

Its not? How can certain species SURVIVE if the unborn is not allowed to live? You have no rational argument based the least bit upon logic, reason or science. You keep repeating the same false premise void of disproving or proving anything....yet you declare through Psychological Projection that its others that don't understand science.

I did not ask the reason why those laws existed. I asked why is UNBORN life protected (if its not life....why does it require protecting?) in the animal kingdom and not in humanity? Another thing you failed to address. If a fetus is not alive and growing.....why the need to KILL/ABORT it? If its not alive nothing will come of that non life. Have you ever heard of the Law of the Excluded Middle?

Apparently not. No position holds the logical position of being both true and false at the same instance. On one hand LIFE exists in unborn animal life that requires the protection of the rule of law.....at the same time the court found that LIFE does not exist in humanity until the actual birth cycle takes place. One of these principles is full of shit....and logically negates the other. I choose door number 1.....the endangered species act is actually on the side of applied science.
 
Last edited:
ThatOwlWoman said:
ZIVr4Ji.png
Click to expand...

Maybe if we started calling them undocumented weapons, liberals would be more concerned of protecting the right to have them.
 
StoneByStone said:
Isn't that for endangered species?



Like I said, it's material that can eventually become human life. It's not alive, doctors don't KILL IT, they just remove the clump of cells before it becomes alive. And the same thing goes for sperm. Do you think sperm is human life too?
Click to expand...

Then why do liberals want to protect bird and turtle eggs, seeing as how they're not alive??
 
domer76 said:
Gun regulations are not unconstitutional. Even your hero, Scalia, recognized that.
Click to expand...

Guns......just like all rights can be regulated through common law which does not totally rescind any protected constitutional right. Why? Because the same people who ratified the constitution is also responsible for common sense regulation of those rights. Hell......life and liberty are both regulated through common law. But the only method of regulation is through due process. Anyone can become imprisoned and lose their constitutional right of LIBERTY. Even life is regulated through due process as some crimes against humanity carry the death penalty.

You can regulate gun ownership....but you can't totally rescind a constitutional right void of a Constitutional Amendment. You can regulate the right to vote. You can regulate the right to speak, to assemble...etc., But you can't rescind any of those rights void of amending the Constitution. Its like the DEMOCRAT history of SLAVE OWNERSHIP being legal....it only became illegal when the constitutional was actually amended...why? Before the constitution was amended, slavery existed because the people wanted it to exist...when society evolved, the constitution evolved to reflect that evolution of morality. It took an attitude adjustment among the democrat slave holding states like getting head behind the head with a 2x4....(the civil war)….but society eventually evolved. Truth does not evolve but societies do.
 
Ralph said:
Exactly what is your point? If any Law stopped criminals acts form existing...…..there would be no crime of murder with the first act of legislation making that act a crime. Crimes exist because Laws don't have the capacity to establish morality or eliminate anything. Laws simply identify what acts society defines as being unacceptable and immoral. Moral societies enact moral laws.....immoral societies make immoral laws. Criminals exist because FREE WILL exists. If you can rescind the right of self protection from the law abiding....then only the criminals will have guns to slaughter the sheep at will.....just like exampled in the acts of mass murder, always perpetrated upon the defenseless.
Click to expand...

So then if we make abortion illegal, it will still happen, correct?
 
Tkaffen said:
I don’t see the similarities between gun ownership and abortion.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying there are similarities between the two.

Gun enthusiasts often say gun control doesn't work because people will just get guns on the black market. My question to people who believe that is if they also believe banning abortions won't work because people will just have black market doctors perform abortions.
 
StoneByStone said:
I'm not talking about muh constitution. I'm asking people who use the argument that people will always be able to get guns if they are consistent.
Click to expand...

But you can't take the Constitution out of the argument; because when you discuss guns, the Constitution is a large part of the discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top