100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Why Good People Should Be Armed | |
|---|---|
|
|
 The US, except for China, has the highest number of traffic related deaths per year. Perhaps we should get rid of autos too? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tackleberry is definitely not the image of your regular American Gunowner,except in the fevered frightened mind of the Gungrabbers! Dude, you missed my point about Tackleberry. Tackleberry can possess a fire-arm if he wants to, but we don't need to encourage him to do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sat 12/07/13 10:58 AM
|
|
Tackleberry is definitely not the image of your regular American Gunowner,except in the fevered frightened mind of the Gungrabbers! Dude, you missed my point about Tackleberry. Tackleberry can possess a fire-arm if he wants to, but we don't need to encourage him to do so. But Tackleberry is a Gung-Ho Police-Officer who represents the State! Here you have your Tackleberrys!(what a name  ) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/nyregion/unarmed-man-is-charged-with-wounding-bystanders-shot-by-police-near-times-square.html?_r=0 Unarmed Man Is Charged With Wounding Bystanders Shot by Police Near Times Square By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr. Published: December 4, 2013 An unarmed, emotionally disturbed man shot at by the police as he was lurching around traffic near Times Square in September has been charged with assault, on the theory that he was responsible for bullet wounds suffered by two bystanders, according to an indictment unsealed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan on Wednesday.  you all need to fear the Agents of the State,NOT lawabiding Firearms-Owners,yet every toughening of the Firearms-Code just punishes the lawabiding Gunowner! That's sick! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tackleberry is definitely not the image of your regular American Gunowner,except in the fevered frightened mind of the Gungrabbers! Dude, you missed my point about Tackleberry. Tackleberry can possess a fire-arm if he wants to, but we don't need to encourage him to do so. Dude? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dodo_David
on
Sat 12/07/13 11:06 AM
|
|
Tackleberry is definitely not the image of your regular American Gunowner,except in the fevered frightened mind of the Gungrabbers! Dude, you missed my point about Tackleberry. Tackleberry can possess a fire-arm if he wants to, but we don't need to encourage him to do so. But Tackleberry is a Gung-Ho Police-Officer who represents the State! Tackleberry is a gung-ho citizen who wants to use a fire-arm in order to play "hero". For example, George Zimmerman is a Tackleberry who managed to do with his fire-arm what he wanted to do with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The US, except for China, has the highest number of traffic related deaths per year. Perhaps we should get rid of autos too? car driving has common sense regulations, no one proposed for anyone to 'get rid' of guns,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The US, except for China, has the highest number of traffic related deaths per year. Perhaps we should get rid of autos too? car driving has common sense regulations, no one proposed for anyone to 'get rid' of guns,,, No, just the unalienable right for citizens to own them |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
again, one persons rights ends where anothers begins
for that reasons, rights are not absolute,, they are regulated based upon other rights like the right to feel 'secure' in ones person,,which obviously is infringed upon if emotionally unstable people or children are running around with tools that can so EASILY and EFFORTLEESSLY end lives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sun 12/08/13 07:43 AM
|
|
again, one persons rights ends where anothers begins for that reasons, rights are not absolute,, they are regulated based upon other rights like the right to feel 'secure' in ones person,,which obviously is infringed upon if emotionally unstable people or children are running around with tools that can so EASILY and EFFORTLEESSLY end lives So,I must not own a Fork or Screwdriver,because you might feel threatened by them! You have made just about the most ludicrous Statement concerning Rights I have ever heard! BTW,show me that Right in the Bill Of Rights!  So,you claim to have the Right to take away from me anything you might feel threatened about? That's a Hoot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How come no one here tells me why Good People SHOULDN't be armed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 12/08/13 07:53 AM
|
|
again, one persons rights ends where anothers begins for that reasons, rights are not absolute,, they are regulated based upon other rights like the right to feel 'secure' in ones person,,which obviously is infringed upon if emotionally unstable people or children are running around with tools that can so EASILY and EFFORTLEESSLY end lives So,I must not own a Fork or Screwdriver,because you might feel threatened by them! You have made just about the most ludicrous Statement concerning Rights I have ever heard! BTW,show me that Right in the Bill Of Rights! So,you claim to have the Right to take away from me anything you might feel threatened about? That's a Hoot! this is a ridiculous analogy,,,, first of all, forks and knives are made as eating utensils,, they aren't MADE for killing,(With the exception of hunting knives) just bout anything can kill but NOTHING with the ease and rate of a GUN which is MADE FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN MAIMING OR KILLING when is the last time a child Accidentally killed themselves with a fork or a knive? when did a mass killing happen with a fork or knife? when did someone EVER Take out tens or dozens in a matter of seconds with a fork or knife... second of all,, there is no right to 'take away' ,, that has never been asserted accept in these repeated and tiresome rebuttals,,,, there is a right to have common sense REGULATION,,,of a well armed CITIZEN militia and of other rights for those situations where they infringe upon the SECURITY of other citizens,,,, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How come no one here tells me why Good People SHOULDN't be armed? number one reason: THEY DONT WISH TO OR FEEL A NEED TO BE,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
again, one persons rights ends where anothers begins for that reasons, rights are not absolute,, they are regulated based upon other rights like the right to feel 'secure' in ones person,,which obviously is infringed upon if emotionally unstable people or children are running around with tools that can so EASILY and EFFORTLEESSLY end lives So,I must not own a Fork or Screwdriver,because you might feel threatened by them! You have made just about the most ludicrous Statement concerning Rights I have ever heard! BTW,show me that Right in the Bill Of Rights! So,you claim to have the Right to take away from me anything you might feel threatened about? That's a Hoot! this is a ridiculous analogy,,,, first of all, forks and knives are made as eating utensils,, they aren't MADE for killing,, just bout anything can kill but NOTHING with the ease and rate of a GUN which is MADE FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN MAIMING OR KILLING when is the last time a child Accidentally killed themselves with a fork or a knive? when did a mass killing happen with a fork or knife? when did someone EVER Take out tens or dozens in a matter of seconds with a fork or knife... second of all,, there is no right to 'take away' ,, that has never been asserted accept in these repeated and tiresome rebuttals,,,, there is a right to have common sense REGULATION,,,of a well armed CITIZEN militia and of other rights for those situations where they infringe upon the SECURITY of other citizens,,,, Come and get them!  seems you are a great one on Preventative Punishment! Read your Constitution! Don't mouth that Idiot Sharpton's Garbage that there can't be no Unregulated Rights! That is Utter Garbage,yet the Sheep fall for it everytime! Besides,that Well Regulated means Well Trained in the 18th Century Usage,not for you antigunners to steal the Firearms of Lawabiding Citizens! How come you are toeing the United Nation's Line so consistently! Your Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land,NOT some Crud spouted by some Idiot at the UN! And you are right,your Rights begin where mine stop,and the Constitution says clearly that my RIGHT is to Own and Bear Arms,and that this Right shall NOT be infringed on! You are arrogating yourself more Rights than you really have,because it states nowhere that you have the Right not to be scared,and that the infringement on my rights somehow ought to provide for that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liberals think adding "common sense" to any statement seems to be justify their senseless illogical arguments. Many of those statements are senseless.
It reminds me of people who say "trust me when I tell you..." to convince you they are right.....when I hear that I think "so I shouldn't trust other things you've said?". If statement or idea truly is "common sense" then it's obvious and doesn't need to be pointed out. It's kind of like when Obama says he wants to hear "common sense solutions" from republicans....what he really means is that he wants to hear from republicans who are willing to help move his agenda forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Human Right of Self-Defense
David B. Kopel,1 Paul Gallant2 & Joanne D. Eisen3 I. INTRODUCTION “Any law, international or municipal, which prohibits recourse to force, is necessarily limited by the right of self-defense.”4 Is there a human right to defend oneself against a violent attacker? Is there an individual right to arms under international law? Conversely, are governments guilty of human rights violations if they do not enact strict gun control laws? The United Nations and some non-governmental organizations have declared that there is no human right to self-defense or to the possession of defensive arms.5 The UN and allied NGOs further declare thatinsufficiently restrictive firearms laws are themselves a human rights violation, so all governments must sharply restrict citiz en firearms possession.6 This Article investigates the legal status of self-defense by examining a broad variety of sources of international law. Based on those sources, the Article suggests that personal self-defense is a well-established human right under international law and is an important foundation of international law itself. Since the 1990s, the United Nations has been focusing increasing attention on international firearms control. UN-backed programs have promoted and funded the surrender and confiscation of citizen firearms in nations around the world.7 The United Nations subsidized the proponents of an October 2005 national gun confiscation referendum in Brazil.8 A subcommission of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has declared that there is no human right to personal self-defense and that extremely strict gun control is a human right which allgovernments are required to enforce immediately. 9 The full Human Rights Council is expected to take up the issue and promulgate similar orders.10 The declaration implements a report for the HRC prepared by Special Rapporteur Barbara Frey.11 According to the Frey standard adopted by the United Nations, even the most restrictive gun laws in the United States, such as those in Washington, D.C., or New York City, are violations of current human rights law, because they are insufficiently stringent. For example, a person in New York City who obtains a permit to possess a shotgun may use that shotgun for a variety of purposes (e.g., collecting, shooting clay pigeons, bird hunting, or home-defense), whereas the UN and Frey would require that a license enumerate “specific purposes” for which a gun could be used.12 In addition, every jurisdiction in the United States is in violation of present human rights law (according to the UN) in that state laws allow law enforcement officials to use deadly force (e.g., a handgun) to prevent the commission of certain crimes (such as rape or sexual assault on a child) even when the law enforcement officer has no reason to believe that the victim might be killed or seriously injured.13 The anti-self-defense and anti-firearms ownership mandates from the United Nations are unlikely to be directly adopted as law by Congress or by state legislatures in the United States. Nevertheless, there are a variety of ways, discussed infra, in which purported international law mandates can be imposed on American citizens without legislative consent.14 This is where you Gungrabbers get your Cues from! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
again, one persons rights ends where anothers begins for that reasons, rights are not absolute,, they are regulated based upon other rights like the right to feel 'secure' in ones person,,which obviously is infringed upon if emotionally unstable people or children are running around with tools that can so EASILY and EFFORTLEESSLY end lives So,I must not own a Fork or Screwdriver,because you might feel threatened by them! You have made just about the most ludicrous Statement concerning Rights I have ever heard! BTW,show me that Right in the Bill Of Rights! So,you claim to have the Right to take away from me anything you might feel threatened about? That's a Hoot! this is a ridiculous analogy,,,, first of all, forks and knives are made as eating utensils,, they aren't MADE for killing,, just bout anything can kill but NOTHING with the ease and rate of a GUN which is MADE FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN MAIMING OR KILLING when is the last time a child Accidentally killed themselves with a fork or a knive? when did a mass killing happen with a fork or knife? when did someone EVER Take out tens or dozens in a matter of seconds with a fork or knife... second of all,, there is no right to 'take away' ,, that has never been asserted accept in these repeated and tiresome rebuttals,,,, there is a right to have common sense REGULATION,,,of a well armed CITIZEN militia and of other rights for those situations where they infringe upon the SECURITY of other citizens,,,, Come and get them! seems you are a great one on Preventative Punishment! Read your Constitution! Don't mouth that Idiot Sharpton's Garbage that there can't be no Unregulated Rights! That is Utter Garbage,yet the Sheep fall for it everytime! Besides,that Well Regulated means Well Trained in the 18th Century Usage,not for you antigunners to steal the Firearms of Lawabiding Citizens! How come you are toeing the United Nation's Line so consistently! Your Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land,NOT some Crud spouted by some Idiot at the UN! And you are right,your Rights begin where mine stop,and the Constitution says clearly that my RIGHT is to Own and Bear Arms,and that this Right shall NOT be infringed on! You are arrogating yourself more Rights than you really have,because it states nowhere that you have the Right not to be scared,and that the infringement on my rights somehow ought to provide for that! this is worse than trying to reason with preschoolers,,lol KEEP YOUR GUNS, I DONT WANT THEM, I DONT WANT TO 'TAKE' THEM law abiding citziens ALREADY can purchase guns,,, BUT, gun purchase is regulated according to being law abiding (which would strictly violate the constitution if it is indeed an 'absolute right' to own a gun) and such regulation makes COMMON SENSE< as it does to regulate gun ownership on the terms of mental and emotional stability of the gun owner |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liberals think adding "common sense" to any statement seems to be justify their senseless illogical arguments. Many of those statements are senseless. It reminds me of people who say "trust me when I tell you..." to convince you they are right.....when I hear that I think "so I shouldn't trust other things you've said?". If statement or idea truly is "common sense" then it's obvious and doesn't need to be pointed out. It's kind of like when Obama says he wants to hear "common sense solutions" from republicans....what he really means is that he wants to hear from republicans who are willing to help move his agenda forward. NO, not at all, because 'common sense' isn't common in all circles,, especially amongst absolutists or extremists,,, common sense requires an ability to look at things logically instead of emotionally and to look at more than one side or angle or possibility in a situation, which is not a skill often present amongst absolutists and extremists |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Human Right of Self-Defense David B. Kopel,1 Paul Gallant2 & Joanne D. Eisen3 I. INTRODUCTION “Any law, international or municipal, which prohibits recourse to force, is necessarily limited by the right of self-defense.”4 Is there a human right to defend oneself against a violent attacker? Is there an individual right to arms under international law? Conversely, are governments guilty of human rights violations if they do not enact strict gun control laws? The United Nations and some non-governmental organizations have declared that there is no human right to self-defense or to the possession of defensive arms.5 The UN and allied NGOs further declare thatinsufficiently restrictive firearms laws are themselves a human rights violation, so all governments must sharply restrict citiz en firearms possession.6 This Article investigates the legal status of self-defense by examining a broad variety of sources of international law. Based on those sources, the Article suggests that personal self-defense is a well-established human right under international law and is an important foundation of international law itself. Since the 1990s, the United Nations has been focusing increasing attention on international firearms control. UN-backed programs have promoted and funded the surrender and confiscation of citizen firearms in nations around the world.7 The United Nations subsidized the proponents of an October 2005 national gun confiscation referendum in Brazil.8 A subcommission of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has declared that there is no human right to personal self-defense and that extremely strict gun control is a human right which allgovernments are required to enforce immediately. 9 The full Human Rights Council is expected to take up the issue and promulgate similar orders.10 The declaration implements a report for the HRC prepared by Special Rapporteur Barbara Frey.11 According to the Frey standard adopted by the United Nations, even the most restrictive gun laws in the United States, such as those in Washington, D.C., or New York City, are violations of current human rights law, because they are insufficiently stringent. For example, a person in New York City who obtains a permit to possess a shotgun may use that shotgun for a variety of purposes (e.g., collecting, shooting clay pigeons, bird hunting, or home-defense), whereas the UN and Frey would require that a license enumerate “specific purposes” for which a gun could be used.12 In addition, every jurisdiction in the United States is in violation of present human rights law (according to the UN) in that state laws allow law enforcement officials to use deadly force (e.g., a handgun) to prevent the commission of certain crimes (such as rape or sexual assault on a child) even when the law enforcement officer has no reason to believe that the victim might be killed or seriously injured.13 The anti-self-defense and anti-firearms ownership mandates from the United Nations are unlikely to be directly adopted as law by Congress or by state legislatures in the United States. Nevertheless, there are a variety of ways, discussed infra, in which purported international law mandates can be imposed on American citizens without legislative consent.14 This is where you Gungrabbers get your Cues from! where are these 'gungrabbers'? and why always Assuming those who aren't gun enthusiasts are therefore aligned with some other entity which happens to agree with some of their opinions? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
again, one persons rights ends where anothers begins for that reasons, rights are not absolute,, they are regulated based upon other rights like the right to feel 'secure' in ones person,,which obviously is infringed upon if emotionally unstable people or children are running around with tools that can so EASILY and EFFORTLEESSLY end lives So,I must not own a Fork or Screwdriver,because you might feel threatened by them! You have made just about the most ludicrous Statement concerning Rights I have ever heard! BTW,show me that Right in the Bill Of Rights! So,you claim to have the Right to take away from me anything you might feel threatened about? That's a Hoot! this is a ridiculous analogy,,,, first of all, forks and knives are made as eating utensils,, they aren't MADE for killing,, just bout anything can kill but NOTHING with the ease and rate of a GUN which is MADE FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN MAIMING OR KILLING when is the last time a child Accidentally killed themselves with a fork or a knive? when did a mass killing happen with a fork or knife? when did someone EVER Take out tens or dozens in a matter of seconds with a fork or knife... second of all,, there is no right to 'take away' ,, that has never been asserted accept in these repeated and tiresome rebuttals,,,, there is a right to have common sense REGULATION,,,of a well armed CITIZEN militia and of other rights for those situations where they infringe upon the SECURITY of other citizens,,,, Come and get them! seems you are a great one on Preventative Punishment! Read your Constitution! Don't mouth that Idiot Sharpton's Garbage that there can't be no Unregulated Rights! That is Utter Garbage,yet the Sheep fall for it everytime! Besides,that Well Regulated means Well Trained in the 18th Century Usage,not for you antigunners to steal the Firearms of Lawabiding Citizens! How come you are toeing the United Nation's Line so consistently! Your Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land,NOT some Crud spouted by some Idiot at the UN! And you are right,your Rights begin where mine stop,and the Constitution says clearly that my RIGHT is to Own and Bear Arms,and that this Right shall NOT be infringed on! You are arrogating yourself more Rights than you really have,because it states nowhere that you have the Right not to be scared,and that the infringement on my rights somehow ought to provide for that! this is worse than trying to reason with preschoolers,,lol KEEP YOUR GUNS, I DONT WANT THEM, I DONT WANT TO 'TAKE' THEM law abiding citziens ALREADY can purchase guns,,, BUT, gun purchase is regulated according to being law abiding (which would strictly violate the constitution if it is indeed an 'absolute right' to own a gun) and such regulation makes COMMON SENSE< as it does to regulate gun ownership on the terms of mental and emotional stability of the gun owner Why is it that public Figures constantly talk about Gunbans,not some,ALL! Ask Reid or Feinstein! And you tell me in spite of them openly stating what they are going to do,that they don't want to take the Guns of every Civilian in the US,and eventually every Firearm from Civilians Globally! Do you think it is an Accident that 46 United States Senators have signed off on the UN Global Firearms-Ban Treaty! And all that is needed to ratify it,is a Majority in the Senate and Obama's Signature,and that would most likely be forthcoming! Congress,sadly,has no Voice in this! Yet you still try tell me that there is no cause for Concern! I see what the antigunners are constantly try to do here in my Country as well,and it parallels what they are up to at the UN and in the US Legislature! But no,no cause for concern,you have the right to defend yourself with your bare Knuckles,because you were honest enough to turn in your Firearms when the Law called for it,but I doubt the Criminals were that Lawabiding,so them and the Government-Thugs will have a Field-day,and all because some Liberal was afraid of of my Firearm! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lets take it one by one
I don't know what 'you all' want, but I want current laws enforced with the aim of keeping militia style weaponry off the streets and out of the hands of both criminals and emotionally unstable/paranoid 'law abiding' citizens,, (They often are those who commit mass murders, they were law abiding UNTIL then) ANy statement about what ALL of any group talk about is bogus on its face without a need to even review... Reid and Feinstein are two individuals in the public eye out of thousands if there is anyone who has stated they want to take firearms from EVERY CITIZEN, in the US or Globally, they are clearly suffering from lack of common sense or rationale, and definitely a minority amongst ANY group, politician or non I can find no information such a thing a s 'firearm ban treaty' but instead , more of a firearms TRADE treaty http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/still-no-international-gun-ban-treaty/ the senate IS part of congress I am concerned, but not with taking your guns, I am concerned with guns in the hands of those who are emotionally unstable or criminally inclined,,, |
|
|
|
|
