Imagine leftist outrage if a leaked opinion banned AR15s.........

Walt said:
Japan is an extreme example of something working that you say is impossible. Canada is a more reasonable example. Canadian culture is as similar to American as anything can be, and Canada has more hunting than the USA does.
Click to expand...

hunting has nothing to do with it.............what those places do NOT have is inner city gangs killing each other............all gun control laws only work on those law abiding people..........come back to us when you have a plan that works against the criminals
 
SmarterthanYou said:
it's only questionable to those who don't like certain rights..........
Click to expand...

Not true, no right is absolute, never has been, they all have been regulated, one person’s right to do something can and often does interfere with another’s right, rights aren’t about desire, rather reason
 
archives said:
Not true, no right is absolute, never has been, they all have been regulated, one person’s right to do something can and often does interfere with another’s right, rights aren’t about desire, rather reason
Click to expand...

the above attitude and outlook on rights is exactly why we are a divided nation.......congratulations on making the argument for overturning roe v. wade.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the above attitude and outlook on rights is exactly why we are a divided nation.......congratulations on making the argument for overturning roe v. wade.
Click to expand...

Hardly, Roe v Wade, when agreed upon back in 1973, by a Republican Court 7-2, was about the right to privacy, something completely overlooked in the latest discussion by those supposedly so concerned about rights
 
archives said:
Hardly, Roe v Wade, when agreed upon back in 1973, by a Republican Court 7-2, was about the right to privacy, something completely overlooked in the latest discussion by those supposedly so concerned about rights
Click to expand...

and that right to privacy is not absolute, it can be regulated, which are exactly your words.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and huge ARMED protests rocked the nation..........

the term 'domestic terrorists' would be in bright flashing neon signs all over the place.......
Click to expand...

Armed protests are, obviously, a risky choice regardless of cause. It's really easy for flared tempers to end in murder when all it takes is a split second of seeing red. When killing someone is a trigger-pull away, things have a tendency to turn out bloody.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and that right to privacy is not absolute, it can be regulated, which are exactly your words.
Click to expand...

Correct, although my reason for bringing it up was to mention how it has been completely overlooked in the discussion now, but you are right, as can any other right can be regulated as your “right to defend yourself,” the means the methods can be regulated
 
SmarterthanYou said:
there is a right to violence to protect ourselves, our families, our fellow Americans, and our rights most of all.
Click to expand...

There is no such right in the Constitution. In fact, under the English Common Law that the Constitution prescribes, there is an obligation to retreat. In other words, violence is considered the last option, not the first. There are still a few states with an obligation to retreat.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
hunting has nothing to do with it.............what those places do NOT have is inner city gangs killing each other............all gun control laws only work on those law abiding people..........come back to us when you have a plan that works against the criminals
Click to expand...

Canada has cities, and a lot more immigrants in those cities than the USA does.
 
Walt said:
Yes, LOL. It is also called armed robbery. You cannot point a gun at someone, and say that you would not have pulled the trigger if they did not give you the money. There is an implicit threat in pointing a gun.



Basically right. Violence, or the threat of violence is not protesting, it is terrorism.
Click to expand...

I never understand why posters amputate a shred of my thought and present it as if it is the whole thought.
 
Code1211 said:
I never understand why posters amputate a shred of my thought and present it as if it is the whole thought.
Click to expand...

Brevity. When you write half a novel, and someone wants to respond, it's just courtesy to clip it and only retain the part that you're responding to.
 
Walt said:
There is no such right in the Constitution. In fact, under the English Common Law that the Constitution prescribes, there is an obligation to retreat. In other words, violence is considered the last option, not the first. There are still a few states with an obligation to retreat.
Click to expand...

wrong. everybody has a natural right to defend themselves. there is NO constitutionally mandated obligation to retreat, nor would one be constitutionally legitimate. the current laws that prescribe one are unlawful and unconstitutional.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
there is NO constitutionally mandated obligation to retreat, nor would one be constitutionally legitimate.
Click to expand...

The courts have never found that. Each of the 50 states have different laws on this, but before Stand Your Ground Laws, most states had settled on a Duty To Retreat, except for in one's home(Castle Doctrine).

Removing the Duty To Retreat from English Common Law, especially outside the house, is problematic. It means that a person can aggressively verbally attack someone, and then claim the victim might get angry, so was a threat. It allows for pre-punishment of a victim, who has done nothing but be the victim.
 
Walt said:
The courts have never found that. Each of the 50 states have different laws on this, but before Stand Your Ground Laws, most states had settled on a Duty To Retreat, except for in one's home(Castle Doctrine).

Removing the Duty To Retreat from English Common Law, especially outside the house, is problematic. It means that a person can aggressively verbally attack someone, and then claim the victim might get angry, so was a threat. It allows for pre-punishment of a victim, who has done nothing but be the victim.
Click to expand...

the courts once found that former slaves could never be citizens...........that corporations have freedom of speech...........and you're also using hyperbole over an obviously illegal hypothetical

when will you idjits understand that the courts don't get everything right.......that WE THE PEOPLE determine constitutionality
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top