Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Annie is right…you know.
- Status
L
LongingSoul
Guest
More that than a religion.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
It’s against forum rules to make personal attacks and to bring my personal details into the debate is a low act.
The platform that I stand on in this debate is objecting to the belief that the right to own a gun is a divine and universal human right. I agree I don’t have any business (or interest) in contributing to what are considered American rights but when the issue is being defended as a divine or universal tenet… the floor is open for anyone on the globe to contribute on that point.
S
sallybutler
Guest
I said crime rate, I didn’t say murder rate.
S
sallybutler
Guest
I wouldn’t put guns up there with air, food, water, and prayer. A gun is a recent (relatively speaking) invention, especially when compared to rocks, knives, bows and arrows. I don’t think God gave Adam and Eve guns.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Which is more pertinent to the subject?
Murder (violent Crimes) or bad checks, fraud or auto theft???
S
sallybutler
Guest
Annie said crime rate, not murder rate. I was just using the same stats.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
I believe your response was more of a personal attack than Annie’s statement.
Your platform is wobbly!
God created man with one fundamental right: The right to life. All the others are its consequences or corollaries.
The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
The right to life is the source of all rights. Man holds these rights, not from a government nor for the government, but against the government—as a barrier which the government cannot cross; . . . these rights are man’s protection against all other men.
The United States recognizes rights “endowed by our Creator” (Divine). Among them is the right to keep and bear arms. The United states does not grant that right. It cannot, because it is an inalienable right endowed by our Creator. The United States (by law) PROTECTS that God given and universal human right.
The interesting fact, Longing, is that YOU are actually endowed with the same right. The only problem is that your government does not recognize it and therefore VIOLATES your God Given RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Would you agree with the divine extent of the right to bear arms that Zoltan espouses in #226 ?I wouldn’t put guns up there with air, food, water, and prayer. A gun is a recent (relatively speaking) invention, especially when compared to rocks, knives, bows and arrows. I don’t think God gave Adam and Eve guns.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 3 states… •Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
un.org/en/documents/udhr/
This is the universal basis from which each country or culture determins the best way to facilitate that environment for the good of each of its citizens most fairly and with equal regard.
The US constitution deemed private gun ownership the most effective means by which the general security of each citizen was optimally served at the time the constitution was written up.
In other countries, a policy of private arms bearing in this way is rejected as the overall and equal security of the citizens is not served by it. Citizens tend to turn their arms on each other over personal issues far more than identifying as a unified militia defending the common good. Because of this, many citizens, the vulnerable mainly, are disadvantaged by their lack of physical, financial and political powers to qualify for this equal right to security by means of a gun. The universal right to security cannot be served because of the discriminatory nature of gun ownership.
Where guns are banned as a means of self defense and that lethal capacity (which the gun represents) is allocated to the police and army, the overall security of every citizen is optimally served since the incidence of citizens turning guns on each other is a markedly reduced phenomenon. Violence and crime will still occur of course, but without the overwhelming presence in the general community of guns, the sense of security is far greater.
Gun ownership is not a universal right. It is a measure and option that may serve the universal right to security in specific circumstances and conditions. It is not a protected inalienable right in and of itself.
S
sallybutler
Guest
No, I wouldn’t. I was brought up to believe there are only two guarantees that we can rely on – death and taxes.
Jesus offered us eternal life with Him. I don’t think He meant physical life on the planet Earth.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the Constitution of the United States. But I think too many people use it to justify their sense of entitlements. I have a right to a gun, I have a right to say whatever I want, I have a right to privacy even when in public, I have a right to safety, me, me, me.
We tend to forget the responsibilities that go with those rights. I must stand up for my country, I must let others say what they want, I must grant others their privacy, I must protect others, even if I don’t like them. We, we, we.
And this occurs on both the right and the left.
H
Holly3278
Guest
I used to be slightly anti-gun but now I am pro-gun. I don’t own one though.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Beautiful! You restore my basic faith in humanity.
S
sallybutler
Guest
The funny thing is, I’m not anti gun. I am anti non responsible gun ownership. I think everyone who owns a gun should be required to take courses that cover laws, safety, And ability to use. I think vision should be tested, ability to aim and hit a target should be tested, decision making under stress so one doesn’t shoot innocent people, the ability to take care of one’s gun. I don’t think non-military or non-police need machine guns, bazooka, or anti-aircraft weapons. I think hunters should also prove that, if they can’t dress their hunt, they have proof that they have someone who will do it for them. Being certified in first aid should also be a requirement for gun ownership. I don’t think paranoid people or people with a history of violence should be allowed to have guns.
I admire hunters that don’t use AK-47s. I admire people who call the police instead of shooting (and yes, I’ve been in those situations). I understand why people in isolated areas would need a gun.
So I am pro-gun. However, I think we should either have reasonable regulations (which, of course, mine are
) or no regulations.
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
From Zoltan Cobalt:
I have a follow on question if I may. If God, as you have said, gave humankind one right -the right to life, how is it that it is an inalienable right to carry a device that was designed primarily for the purpose to take away the one right you have stated that God gave us, which is in fact life itself?
I am honestly and intently curious to understand your thinking.
Thank you,
Gary
From Zoltan Cobalt, same post:
Good Evening Zoltan Cobalt: Help me to understand if you would how these two statements are to be reconciled. You have said that God created man with one fundamental right, and all others are consequences or corollaries. Then you go on to say that keeping and bearing arms is an inalienable right endowed by our creator. I am interested in how you have managed to reason that these ideas correspond. In other words, the statements seems to contradict one another. What is your line of thinking on this?
I have a follow on question if I may. If God, as you have said, gave humankind one right -the right to life, how is it that it is an inalienable right to carry a device that was designed primarily for the purpose to take away the one right you have stated that God gave us, which is in fact life itself?
I am honestly and intently curious to understand your thinking.
Thank you,
Gary
T
thequietsinger
Guest
I’m honestly not sure if I’m pro-gun or anti-gun. My opinions are very conflicting and complex when it comes to this topic.
S
sallybutler
Guest
I give credit for those beliefs to my mother, who has passed on.Beautiful! You restore my basic faith in humanity.
A
Annie39
Guest
Hi Zoltan
The post below may read a little disjointed I typed it in a hurry and in a little pain due to a medical condition (non life threatening) that has decided to remind me that its still around
. But I think that I have at least gotten my point across.In reply to LongingSoul you write: “I believe your response was more of a personal attack than Annie’s statement.
It will come as no surprise that I agree with this but there is a history behind her calling me a vicious and nasty person. As she said it’s just her opinion and she has a right to it. Our discussions go back probably a year. I doubt that her final verbal discussion killer was due only to my latest discussion regarding the city in which she lives. It is probably due to much of what went on in our discussions perhaps most especially when we were discussing the baby killing suction devices that both our countries allow. But that is just a guess. LS is against persons having guns for self protection and believes that having that weapon constitutes “….granting the general population lethal force/the licence to kill, in protecting themselves and their property, is promoting every individual to judge, jury and executioner without the normally strict and serious conditions that regulate a judge a jury and an executioner.”
It seems to me that she believes that it is much kinder and more “Christian” to be against arming oneself for protection of self and loved ones. I see things much differently and used questions to attempt to bring it home to her and others who believe the way she does. I asked her if she visited me here in Arizona USA and a bad guy broke in and held a gun to her child’s head would she be against my using my legal firearm to save her child. I don’t even know if she has a child so I asked her if she would she berate me if it was her that I rescued. This may be part of the reason that she said that I use personal attacks.
IMO, when gun controllers are against people carrying guns they are saying that we must be ready to be collateral damage if some crazy person like the guy in Santa Barbara, CA decides to go on a killing spree. Oh well too bad for his victims at least they didn’t have the means necessary to use lethal force; too bad for all you little kiddies in schools like the Sandy Hook children or their wonderful teachers who tried to save them. I see that attitude as cold and unfeeling.
The Santa Barbara guy began with a knife and killed 3 people but there is no outcry to ban all knives. It is a good bet that none of the people in that college town had a conceal carry permit because as a recent resident of that State I can tell you that it is nearly impossible to get one there. So they were all sitting ducks. He used his BMW as a weapon too. So I wonder if there will be an outcry to ban cars or at least BMWs.
I also checked the crime stats in Brisbane and compared them to the stats of my town. There was much more crime per 100,000 in Brisbane than in my town. That is the reason that I suggested that LS concentrate on the problems of her country/city instead of constantly harping on the US.
I am of course aware that there is quite a bit of crime in the USA and I am not saying that “my country is better than your country”. In no sense am I putting the Australians down. On the contrary, I am on record as saying that I have never met an Australian that I didn’t like
Annie
S
sallybutler
Guest
Annie,
I don’t see how arming everyone would prevent these idiots from killing people. They always seem to kill themselves before anyone can react. I believe there was someone in the Aurora theatre that was armed and unable to stop the idiot shooter.
Then there are the idiots who don’t understand the theory of what goes up must come down, and shoot their guns into the air, killing or injuring people far away.
What about the idiots that do drive bys? How would you stop them if they have already sped away?
Or the idiots that don’t lock up their guns when they have children around?
Most of the high-profile shootings/findings (as in China recently) are not stoppable because these people are idiots and crazy (I know, not the politically correct term). The rest of us having a gun will never stop them. If preventing them is the main reason for being against gun laws, you will not be successful. Idiots and crazy people are much more inventive and devious than you or I will ever be.
Btw, I hope your pain goes away soon.
I don’t see how arming everyone would prevent these idiots from killing people. They always seem to kill themselves before anyone can react. I believe there was someone in the Aurora theatre that was armed and unable to stop the idiot shooter.
Then there are the idiots who don’t understand the theory of what goes up must come down, and shoot their guns into the air, killing or injuring people far away.
What about the idiots that do drive bys? How would you stop them if they have already sped away?
Or the idiots that don’t lock up their guns when they have children around?
Most of the high-profile shootings/findings (as in China recently) are not stoppable because these people are idiots and crazy (I know, not the politically correct term). The rest of us having a gun will never stop them. If preventing them is the main reason for being against gun laws, you will not be successful. Idiots and crazy people are much more inventive and devious than you or I will ever be.
Btw, I hope your pain goes away soon.
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
Good Morning Annie: I think she might be worried about now having two people pointing loaded weapons in the direction of her child. That is if the shooter doesn’t pull the trigger when he sees you reach for yours.
I wonder if you have thought these scenarios through very closely. If everyone in a crowd had a gun, there is no way to assure or even assume that everyone in that crowd who also have guns would know who the original shooter was once the return fire starts. And then there’s the problem with bullets. They often pass trough the person you were aiming for and hit another person, or miss the person you were aiming for and hit another person, or ricochet off of other objects and hit other people. I imagine what you might have on your hands in such a situation is one deranged person with a gun attended by a lot of other people with guns who are very excited and full of adrenalin.
Thank you
Gary
- Status