Las Vegas...

There is no point arguing against restrictions to dangerous things, they already exist and will continue to do so... what is being confronted is where that line sits between what should and should not be allowed for firearms. Giving citizens the right to have dangerous equipment, whether it is chemicals or weapons etc, is balanced by regulation to control access, but even then some things are completely unavailable to the public.

Adder wrote: There is no point arguing against restrictions to dangerous things, they already exist and will continue to do so... what is being confronted is where that line sits between what should and should not be allowed for firearms. Giving citizens the right to have dangerous equipment, whether it is chemicals or weapons etc, is balanced by regulation to control access, but even then some things are completely unavailable to the public.

Rights are balanced by rights. Regulation should enforce that balance. Since guns, drugs, etc., fall under property. The law should protect against the unlawful use of them. Possession isn't a violent act. Murder and theft are violent violations of the Right to Life..

Rights are of The Force. Like everything else in nature. They come with an inherent equilibrium.

Jaedon Adar-Barnaby wrote: You see as the elite want you to see.

Jaedon Adar-Barnaby wrote: Second of all, Libertarian? I don't do labels.

For someone who doesn't do labels, you seem to reference the "elite" quite a bit.

While I agree with your premise of self-ownership and self-responsibility, and that guns themselves are not evil, I do not see it practical to do away with all regulations in the name of freedom.

As it currently stands, you cannot legally own a machine gun. Despite the fact a machine gun is no more or less evil than a hand gun.

Jaedon Adar-Barnaby wrote: To sum up your argument...

First of all, government doesn't grant rights. The Force did when I evolved from an irrational animal into a being capable of rational thought.. Nature itself granted me rights by the very nature of my humanity. A gun is a tool of defense. You see as the elite want you to see. It's sole purpose is not indiscriminate murder. Neither does it inspire it. That's comes from the evil in ones heart.

First, if you're referring to Natural Law as being supreme to Man's law, I agree, but the very first right granted by Natural law is the right to life, and my right to live will always supersede your right to own something. My right to defend my life will also supersede any use of a gun other than others defending their own lives, but Natural Law also dictates that you use no more force than necessary to defend your own life. If I don't have a gun, Natural law would say that you don't need one either. It is only a "tool of defense" when you are threatened by another with more firepower than you. If one has evil in their heart, why give them access to a "tool of defense" that can be used to murder innocent people? And finally, if you need an AR-15 to defend yourself, you suck at guns.

Second, the "elite" you speak of are comprised of vastly more conservatives than liberals. Take a look at Donald Trump's Cabinet members.

Jaedon Adar-Barnaby wrote: Second of all, Libertarian? I don't do labels. I just deal with what's right. Liberty is what's right. That is the whole reason these States even exist. Liberty is the natural state of a human being. It takes responsibility and reason to maintain a Free society. Which most people are to an extent. The founders knew that, which is why it's not encouraged by TPTB. The irresponsibility of the few doesn't excuse the oppression of the majority. Society can regulate most of its own affairs. If those habits are taught. They don't teach responsible driving, responsible shopping, or even how law functions. How many people actually read and research what's in their food? How many times have the FDA approved dangerous items just for the money? How many terrorists have the TSA caught? For every 10 accidents recorded, only 3 involve unlicensed drivers. The rest were licensed. How is it right to need permission to use what you own? There can be usage rules. Not prohibitions of usage. That is a function of property rights..

Begin by seeing Manu's last post. If you don't do labels, don't label people as "elites". I also didn't label you. I said you have "Libertarian leanings", which you clearly do based on the third sentence of the above paragraph.

The only "inalienable rights granted by our Creator" are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or property if you go by the original version). Life comes first over liberty, and when innocent lives are being taken, liberties must be limited to protect it. The Founders also knew that the Constitution had to be a living document that would adjust to current times and situations. Semi-automatic rifles did not exist when they included the Second Amendment, and it needs to be framed in a way that represents the current non-existence of "well organized militias" meant to prevent a tyrannical government (which is impossible considering the government has tanks and you don't). You and I, as gun owners, are not being oppressed. We can own guns and shoot them for hunting and recreation as well as protecting our homes. What we can't do is murder a bunch of people in a church, school, office, nightclub, concert venue, or on the open streets. That is not oppression. That is common sense. It is no different than allowing people to have cars, but not allowing then to drive 180 MPH on the freeway while drunk.

You are absolutely right that responsible gun ownership and use needs to be taught. So why does the NRA prevent the CDC from researching the effects of gun violence so we can learn more about how to prevent it? Why aren't classes, tests, and training required to own a gun?

Property rights concerning dangerous items are granted and enforced by the government as allowed by the citizens who vote for the representatives who write the laws. Nature or God didn't grant you the right to own a gun, or anything else for that matter. The government does.

Ownership of nature or God's creation is a relatively new idea that has generated most of the conflict in the world. When we claim ownership of land and resources and draw lines on maps, we are staking a claim on things that belong to everyone, yet keeping them for ourselves through use of force and superior firepower. This is not liberty of Natural Law. It is wrong. Your individual liberties don't take precedent over the rule of law as written by our Congress. That's not how democracy works. Living in a democratic republic such as the U.S. means that you, as a citizen, are granting authority to the federal government to enact regulations and limits on your liberties according to the will of the majority.

Jaedon Adar-Barnaby wrote: Which brings me to my point. Knowledge begets knowledge. Ignorance, ignorance, and bad habits. The way society makes you stronger and prosperous is by teaching you to be a reasoning, responsible human being. Not by coddling us. Freedom should NEVER be exchanged for safety. You will end up with neither. When you call police, agents of the government, to these situations. Aren't you waiting for a "good guy with a gun"? If you eliminate the right for the civilian who will have it? Government.. and under the present circumstances. I'd rather not be dependent on the elite for my well being.. Peace will not be achieved through control.. Only suffering.. because your fear of freedom will lead you right into the arms of the worst tyrant this world has yet to see..

Ignorance, yet Knowledge. That is exactly what needs to be discussed here. A reasonable, responsible, and logical individual will see that people being murdered in large numbers over and over by individuals using the same weapon over and over is a problem that must be addressed. Ignoring it is illogical and irresponsible. Defending use of the weapon is even worse. The government is not coddling me by attempting to prevent someone from murdering me at church or murdering my children while they are at school. To suggest that police are just "good guys with guns" is also illogical. Police are trained professionals tasked with enforcing the law. They wouldn't need semi-automatic rifles of their own if the perpetrators of these crimes didn't have them themselves. The evidence for this can be seen in any number of other industrialized nations with police forces who do not have to resort to gunfire nearly as often, and there are fewer accidental or unwarranted shootings as a result.

And since we're discussing logical thought here, NOBODY is advocating banning all guns or taking them away from you. My initial post suggests the need for regulation of the sale and use of semi-automatic rifles. I'm not against the responsible ownership of semi-automatic handguns with ten round clips, bolt action rifles, or shotguns. The government will never take your guns. Why? Because YOU HAVE GUNS. Do you actually believe police or military will go door to door and search your house to take your guns from you without your permission? Military and police are the biggest supporters of private gun ownership. They would never willingly go along with this. They also tend to believe that weapons designed for the military should remain in the trained hands of the military, especially when they have no legitimate use in civilian life. We can keep the guns we need, not the ones that make us feel big and threatening while serving no legitimate purpose other than killing a lot of people quickly.

I do not fear freedom. It is gun owners who have enough fear to believe they need a gun for defense in the first place, and that fear is stoked by the greedy manufacturers of guns, the NRA who takes their money, and the tyrants in government that they pay to keep people in this state of fear. We are already in the arms of tyrants in the form of legislators who value campaign contributions over human life. You know, those guys who rolled back regulations preventing the mentally ill from buying guns and then claim mass shootings aren't a gun problem, but a mental health issue. Which is ironic, because the latest proposed budget cuts funding meant to research and address mental illness. It is curious that we don't see women committing mass shootings. By the flawed logic presented by gun enthusiasts, we should be led to believe that only men are prone to mental illness. That is categorically false. These same legislators are also pushing to remove restrictions on silencers. What possible logical reason would you have for that, other than selling more silencers? Greedy tyrants are already influencing society in negative ways, my friend. The enemy is already within the walls, and all of your other freedoms (reasonable health care, gender equality, wage equality, fair and equal taxation) are all at risk. But let's just keep defending guns and racking up record breaking body counts. That sounds "logical".

The easiest way to take freedom away from someone is to point a gun at them and use it to take their life. More suffering is caused by guns than they prevent. Wars aren't fought with rocks and sticks. Peace is not achieved through controlling people with superior weaponry. It is achieved through removing the need for weaponry in the first place. That is the logical answer.

First of all Senan you do not need a gun if the other guy does not have one? You know that if guns went poof tomorrow that crime and murder would still happen right? So ok let's say you are weak and feeling ill from your medical treatments Or its a woman who is five foot flat and 100 pounds. Now your attacker is a linebacker size guy with a bat or machete you really think that either you or the women are going to get into some epic sword or staff duel and live? Or would you rather have a gun even though the other person doesn't? A gun is needed when you face a lethal threat be it from another gun or any other deadly tool.

The whole semi-autos did not exist line is so played out its not even funny. They had a brain and could envision such a thing. We can think of laser rifles now even though we dont have them. The point is they intended the common man to have the same arms as the military. Further, the AR is a great home defense rifle and is part of the original intent of the Founding Fathers to have the common man have arms similar or the same as the standard military arms of the day.

The whole tanks argument we addressed before. The common man could indeed fight back and I am in a better position than you to say that your assertion is wrong as I served in the Navy and my Marine boyfriend agrees with me.

Why reduce restrictions on silencers? Because they are a useful tool to go shooting without ear protection and can reduce noise for those around you. They have a reason

Oh and please do not speak for the military when you did not serve. The military does NOT tend to want to take anything away from its citizens as we keep our oaths and tend to be pro gun.

Finally, if we want to ban the weapon that is used over and over well then let's ban the ideology that causes terror attacks over and over in Europe and restrict that Ideology here and stop letting people who hold that ideology immigrate to western nations. Because hey safety over liberty right?( to be 100% clear that is heavy sarcasm to show the logic of this argument)

To close cops and military personnel that suggest taking guns of any sort have broken their oath and I do not think highly of oath breakers.

Senan, I see the problem. Youre partially correct about some functions of Natural law and US law.

My right to possess property is natural and it doesn't interfere with your right to life.. Depriving someone of their rights without a criminal conviction can be an assault on the right to life..

Property is as old as slavery. Property isn't a new concept. It's just new to the America's. If I cut down some trees and build a house with a fence. Whose is it? Since you say Nature doesn't give the right to property. That's one of the foundational ideas behind natural law..

Please don't equate possession and usage. That's another flaw in the logic you're using. They aren't they same. Be realistic, do you honestly think the PTB "elites" will give up their standing armies? Don't get caught in the left vs right paradigm. The Elites are the powers that don't take office. The same that put the officers in their place. Puppet masters. Our world is ruled by ritualistic dark power. How would it be logical to leave our safety in their hands?

Oh, there's NO WAY the US Constitution is a living document. It has a fixed meaning. You can't have law without somewhat defined terms. Specifically, the Constitution has an amendment process BECAUSE it has a fixed meaning.. The "living document" theory is something lawyers just made up. It's only true because people think it is..

I would also advise you to research Puckle Guns... They had more than muskets in mind when the wrote the 2a. It was probably why they want the citizenry to be well armed. Why is the solution to violence always some form of disarmament?

Jaedon Adar-Barnaby wrote: The law should protect against the unlawful use of them.

Sure, but the 'them' is what is being discussed. I cannot go buy a nuke and I cannot imagine that is what your argueing for. Where do you draw the line??

The purpose of the law is to outline where and how those rights exist and function. Unless you saying there is another higher law, sort of like for example how some Muslim's might say Sharia is higher then government laws?

I'll bow out if it goes into the Constitution as being beyond reproach, but to me its simply a case of determining something's potential risk to the community as the process of determining whether its going to be legal to possess or not. IMO self loading rifles breach (no pun intended) that. I also think so do handguns of all varieties but realize its impossible for the US to go that far.

Fearing the government as an excuse for having a semi-auto rifle is sort of a non-argument now, as the population armed with even machine guns could not stop a committed government if they wanted too. Violence, or the threat of violence, to solve violence tends to escalate violence or the threat of violence. It's why arms races happen, and is what has happened in the US with the crims getting better guns, so the cops get better guns, so the citizens get better guns, so the crims get better guns repeat ad nauseam.

As I've explained before the purpose of a good government is to protect and serve the law abiding community, and so they need an advantage over the criminals who seek to counter it, and the target of the criminals is usually the most vulnerable - so, who do you make the most vulnerable - the government who is tasked to protect the community, or the citizens who are tasked to protect themselves? If you think on that you probably will come to the conclusion its not realistic to expect citizens to hold the power over governments. Its not a good approach to have the power in the hands of the citizens on many fronts IMO, mostly because of the instability both from internal and external to the function of government.... I mean I've always wanted a couple of fighter jets but when I was 6 years old and telling kids at school my dad who was in the Air Force would drop bombs on their house, even I knew it was silly. But for example economic reasons, the poor will be the most vulnerable (still) but also without an effective government to serve them. From what I've read the whole libertarian concept of gun control is based on the illusion that all 'citizens' will be law abiding but it ignores the reality that what they define as a citizen is only those people who obey the law... and making everyone obey the law is more more Orwellian then gun control by a large margin... I mean, its a strange concept in of itself because 'which law'... everyone will have their own take on how a law should function and in reality life is to complex for any body of law to serve - which is why we have dodgy judges trying to find that balance between individual rights and function of society in a peaceful manner.

Citizens can't be trusted to run their own lives. Yet they can be trusted to pick the right people to run their lives.. right.. The logic there is infallible :huh:

So, since we can't stop government tyranny. We should just roll over? I'm really not getting your logic here..

If it were even that easy, no.. Nukes aren't arms according to the old definition used in the constitution. Why do people use such extremes like that? It's an irrational fear.

Rights exist as part of nature. They're not man made.. Since they are, a part of nature, they come with their own, natural, limitations.

I keep saying I'm not a libertarian. If anything I'm a liberal..
The job of government is to protect rights and property. "That government is best that which governs least." YOU are really responsible for your personal security. Precisely because men aren't angels.. Obeying legislative acts is different from respecting rights. People who sell drugs are usually respecting rights. When selling. Though they aren't obeying anti-drug legislation.

If you've read The Power of Myth. You'll see specifically where he says society should serve people and not the other way around. Giving up my rights to an AR is me sacrificing my liberty to serve society.

I'm sorry but if those replies were to me they don't seem related to my points enough for me to converse to them. I will say though that the most natural thing about nature is change, so relying on a stagnant article of law is quite removed from any notion of natural law - unless purporting to be some act of God or science... which again, yes, risks drawing parallels between some people fixation on the Constitution to the sanctity asserted by some religious groups over their bible type documents.