Gun control is coming

[canndo]

Until something is declared legal, say breathing air, is it a persons right to do so, or should they hold their breath until given the okay from government ?

If government passed a law saying "no breathing air on tuesdays" nobody would have the right to breathe air on tuesdays ?

Correct, no one would have that right. Of course the particulars depend on the government we are talking about.


The default is legal, not illegal. Perhaps that is where you are confused.

 

[canndo]

Yes gays have always had the right, same as any other person to chose their human associations.

I should qualify that though...
Getting legally married isn't the expression of a right though, it's an expression of the equality of oppression for having to get permission via a marriage license from government.

Equality of oppression is a sly subterfuge when it's redefined as being a right. Rights don't come from government, never have, never will. The closest government could ever get to a right, is protecting it, which in many government situations isn't what happens.

Seeking permission to act, is not an expression of a right, it is asking permission.

Then let's put it this way, have gays always had the right to a state marriage license?

 

[Hotrod2]

Correct, no one would have that right. Of course the particulars depend on the government we are talking about.


The default is legal, not illegal. Perhaps that is where you are confused.

Legal is not always what is lawful

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Yes gays have always had the right, same as any other person to chose their human associations.

I should qualify that though...
Getting legally married isn't the expression of a right though, it's an expression of the equality of oppression for having to get permission via a marriage license from government.

Equality of oppression is a sly subterfuge when it's redefined as being a right. Rights don't come from government, never have, never will. The closest government could ever get to a right, is protecting it, which in many government situations isn't what happens.

Seeking permission to act, is not an expression of a right, it is asking permission.

so where do rights come from rob? i am genuinely interested in your opinion as to their origin.
what authority is it that grants rights? i haven't seen the ministry of rights, which would surely be right next door to the ministry of responsibilities...wouldn't it?
there is no god, so rights aren't god granted, no matter how much some zealots like to claim it so.
does society grant rights? is there some kind of rotating list that gives random people the right to grant rights? would that make the list supreme, or pointless?....
so enlighten me, where rights come from?

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Legal is not always what is lawful

yes it is, by definition...it may be immoral, unethical, distasteful, irritating, or maddening, but lawful and legal are synonymous...

 

[bam0813]

Technically, all body parts. Which leads me to inappropriately wonder about how many instances of asphyxiation by hindquarters.

Oregon's new gun regulations say nothing about the length of the firearm. It just requires people take a safety class and demonstrate their proficiency in safe use of one. It also requires people demonstrate that they know how to safely store their weapon, bans the sale and use of large magazines and provides extra funding for better background checks. These measures have been demonstrated to cut death rates due to firearms.

You can get all obsessive about the minutia of who died from what if you like. Just wondering why you thought it was relevant.

Because the minutia is rifles w or without detachable mags. Its right there in front of you

 

[bam0813]

What has Oregons new law done to remove the ones already possessed the day before? Nada. What force field do you think exists that words on paper will stop criminal intent? Nada. Should we send them all to Ukraine or maybe just our muskets. Either way im sure they’ll send them back when its our turn.

 

[bam0813]

My state has had all the laws and then some for DECADES. Nothing has changed. Im actually thinking of giving up my lawful right and firearms. Only because i can get better stuff cheaper that nobody knows about easier…….off the street

 

[Rob Roy]

Correct, no one would have that right. Of course the particulars depend on the government we are talking about.


The default is legal, not illegal. Perhaps that is where you are confused.

Uh suuuure.

Then let's put it this way, have gays always had the right to a state marriage license?

A state marriage is not a right, if it requires permission, it's a revokable privilege, sort of like a slave travel pass gave permission.

Gays seeking state permission to be treated as poorly as people that aren't gay regarding marriage is a case, of, "please beat me equally sir".

 

[Rob Roy]

so where do rights come from rob? i am genuinely interested in your opinion as to their origin.
what authority is it that grants rights? i haven't seen the ministry of rights, which would surely be right next door to the ministry of responsibilities...wouldn't it?
there is no god, so rights aren't god granted, no matter how much some zealots like to claim it so.
does society grant rights? is there some kind of rotating list that gives random people the right to grant rights? would that make the list supreme, or pointless?....
so enlighten me, where rights come from?

They come from the nature of your existence.
You think therefore you exist. Yet, You exist in nature as a paradox. You are at once part of nature and a separate entity as an individual.

That is all I can tell you for now, because I think your ability to comprehend greater is not developed enough. Also, I think the creators may be listening and to explain further may anger them.

You're just not ready yet, I'm sorry. In time it will all be revealed. Patience.

 

[Rob Roy]

What has Oregons new law done to remove the ones already possessed the day before? Nada. What force field do you think exists that words on paper will stop criminal intent? Nada. Should we send them all to Ukraine or maybe just our muskets. Either way im sure they’ll send them back when its our turn.

That is a good point. Prohibition criminalizes peaceful people making choices.

Good people will ALWAYS disobey bad laws. That's what makes them good people, they know the difference between right and wrong, regardless of laws. They respect rights.

Criminals will ALWAYS violate other people whether legal to do so or illegal to do so, that's what makes them criminals. They violate rights.

"I've been dying to finally try some marijuana, but that Federal prohibition thing is still there, so I'm gonna wait until they say I can". - Everyone on Rollitup.

 

[Rob Roy]

because the vast vast majority of stamp collectors aren't making it possible for psychopaths to kill people with concealed pistols...
because the vast vast majority of baseball card collectors doesn't open up loopholes that make it possible for white nationalist militias to stockpile weapons and ammo designed to be able to kill people through body armor.
because the vast vast majority of people who like to cook don't facilitate mass murders with arsenals of handguns...
but the vast vast majority of gun owners do all those things.
when ANY steps in the right direction are mentioned, there is an immediate uproar like 1000 parrots scaring the shit out of each other, and shouts of rights, and taking guns over cold dead etc.....
"constitutional carry" is horseshit, anyone carrying a gun in public should be permitted, and on file, and the weapon registered.
all weapons should be registered with the state. NO ONE needs more than 6 rounds...it was good enough for every fucking cowboy in the entire west, it's good enough for people who don't live on the fucking range.
the ONLY reason you need more rounds is because THEY needed more rounds...stop the stupid ass escalation and accept that in order to keep anything, you're going to have to give some shit up...even if it is over your cold dead etc....

Name a state that doesn't use guns to threaten otherwise peaceful people if those people remain peaceful but somehow violate something the state doesn't like.

I don't believe you can.

Therefore the State is making it possible for psychopaths to threaten people, because the state and psychopaths are both willing and able to kill people that are peaceful. The state should not be the arbiter of who can do what as long as it share traits with psychopaths. That would be crazy.

One could infer that people who adhere to the state as an arbiter are either psychopaths themselves or are duped by the embedded psychopathic means and they are ignorant. I suppose some could be both.

 

[sunni]

so no one took christmas off from politics i see

 

[Rob Roy]

Oh alright Roger ! @Roger A. Shrubber

Sometimes the answers can be revealed by discarding the things which are not the answers.

Either rights exist or they don't.

If they don't exist, a state comprised of people can neither deny you rights or give you rights, since they don't exist.


If they do exist.

Either some people are born with more rights than others or people begin life with equal rights. If some people have more rights than others, then the concept of equal rights is a misnomer. It would be a concept based in an inequality, which means the word "rights" is not the proper term to describe the concept. I like the idea we all have equal rights.

If some people have more rights than others, then it could be rightful to enslave those who have less rights. That is the model government uses and which "gun control" rests on. Gun control shares it's rationale with slavery. Slavery is not a good place to begin to defend doing something.

If all people have equal rights, then consent is a necessary ingredient to human interactions. Since it is understood that consent violations are violations of rights and "gun laws" are alleging to protect rights, they must not violate OTHER rights, ie violate the consent of otherwise peaceful people. If it is okay to violate the consent of otherwise peaceful people, then rape would be okay. Again, not a good rationale for "gun control" over otherwise peaceful people.

Since all people are individuals, it follows that consent would have an origin in individual decision. It also follows that to violate consent is not a peaceful action, unless it is to defend against somebody in the act of violating the consent of an otherwise peaceful person. Therefore being peaceful is a way to respect rights.

The assumption that forcibly acquired "collective rights" (a rationalization laden concept in most instances) can violate individual consent can then only exist if the individuals within the collective had the rights the collective claims as individual themselves before they aggregated those rights in the collective. That brings us back to might makes right, which is the rationale for slavery. Let's discard that, again.

Collective rights in the political sense erroneously claim an aggregate of zeroes can equal a positive sum, which is mathematically unsound. So in order for gun control laws to be foisted on otherwise peaceful people, you would first have to strip them of their equality, a kind of slavery, and then create rights from an action which violates the peace, which brings us back to the idea that some people have more rights than others.

Gun control is a form of slavery, embraces racist tactics and it violates the consent of otherwise peaceful people. Therefore it must be wrong.

 

[schuylaar]

uhm no. You still need a friend for that.

Heyyyy wait a minute..I've been to Cirque du Soleil a few times you can't fool me.

 

[schuylaar]

In my fevered imagination, it’s the women doing the smothering. Built-in gasket.

In mine I'm biting the shit out of whoever's ass is on my face.

 

[schuylaar]

Oh alright Roger ! @Roger A. Shrubber

Sometimes the answers can be revealed by discarding the things which are not the answers.

Either rights exist or they don't.

If they don't exist, a state comprised of people can neither deny you rights or give you rights, since they don't exist.


If they do exist.

Either some people are born with more rights than others or people begin life with equal rights. If some people have more rights than others, then the concept of equal rights is a misnomer. It would be a concept based in an inequality, which means the word "rights" is not the proper term to describe the concept. I like the idea we all have equal rights.

If some people have more rights than others, then it could be rightful to enslave those who have less rights. That is the model government uses and which "gun control" rests on. Gun control shares it's rationale with slavery. Slavery is not a good place to begin to defend doing something.

If all people have equal rights, then consent is a necessary ingredient to human interactions. Since it is understood that consent violations are violations of rights and "gun laws" are alleging to protect rights, they must not violate OTHER rights, ie violate the consent of otherwise peaceful people. If it is okay to violate the consent of otherwise peaceful people, then rape would be okay. Again, not a good rationale for "gun control" over otherwise peaceful people.

Since all people are individuals, it follows that consent would have an origin in individual decision. It also follows that to violate consent is not a peaceful action, unless it is to defend against somebody in the act of violating the consent of an otherwise peaceful person. Therefore being peaceful is a way to respect rights.

The assumption that forcibly acquired "collective rights" (a rationalization laden concept in most instances) can violate individual consent can then only exist if the individuals within the collective had the rights the collective claims as individual themselves before they aggregated those rights in the collective. That brings us back to might makes right, which is the rationale for slavery. Let's discard that, again.

Collective rights in the political sense erroneously claim an aggregate of zeroes can equal a positive sum, which is mathematically unsound. So in order for gun control laws to be foisted on otherwise peaceful people, you would first have to strip them of their equality, a kind of slavery, and then create rights from an action which violates the peace, which brings us back to the idea that some people have more rights than others.

Gun control is a form of slavery, embraces racist tactics and it violates the consent of otherwise peaceful people. Therefore it must be wrong.

Quite the Chinese fortune cookie aren't you this AM?

 

[schuylaar]

If they were talking about a musket for a gun, which some like to say to limit what types of firearms we can have, what were they talking about for free speech? A simple printing press, however crude? Certainly not social media, the internet, cell phones or any other modern way of communication, etc?

You Sir, are correct!.let's get rid of it ALL!

 

[schuylaar]

Uh suuuure.
View attachment 5242106





A state marriage is not a right, if it requires permission, it's a revokable privilege, sort of like a slave travel pass gave permission.

Gays seeking state permission to be treated as poorly as people that aren't gay regarding marriage is a case, of, "please beat me equally sir".

Depending on the state it used to require permission and a blood test..there was no legal birth control when I was born and I'm sure they had to get a blood test to prove they weren't brother and sister (or black and white). Interracial couples could marry in NJ at that time (1959) though.

 

[Rob Roy]

Depending on the state it used to require permission and a blood test..there was no legal birth control when I was born and I'm sure they had to get a blood test to prove they weren't brother and sister (or black and white). Interracial couples could marry in NJ at that time (1959) though.

What's important is whether consent is involved and whether an otherwise peaceful individual had the opportunity to provide consent or was denied it. Things which deny consent to an otherwise peaceful person are things which are wrong. I can prove that to most people in person based on their reactions. If I try to place an unwilling persons hand on a hot stove, most people could easily identify me as the aggressor and the person about to be burned as the victim. I would be violating their rights. Consent matters when considering whether a right was violated or not.

A marriage is between people who have consented to the terms, not people that aren't involved in the marriage itself. If a black person and white person wanted to marry not too many years go, the state would use guns to prevent that.

I'm not sure I'm willing to allow the State to be the thing which will decide what is a right and what isn't or who can have guns or not They don't have a good track record.