Will the Second Amendment survive?

[slang]

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Radar

The attacker is violating rights. If he becomes injured or dead when someone defends themselves, his or her rights have not been violated.

Wrong. If his right to live is natural/inalienable then you've violated his right to live by taking away his life, regardless of the reason why you did it. Regardless of whether you were trying to preserve your own or not.

It doesn't matter what the reason is. It's still a right violated.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Wrong. If his right to live is natural/inalienable then you've violated his right to live by taking away his life, regardless of the reason why you did it. Regardless of whether you were trying to preserve your own or not.

It doesn't matter what the reason is. It's still a right violated.

WRONG. When you attack someone, any injuries you suffer (including death) are your own fault. It stands to reason you wouldn't understand something this simple since you're stupid enough to think it's Israel's fault when they retaliate for people blowing up their children.

[Radar]

I agree. This is getting old.

[Aliantha]

No, you are WRONG.

Shall we go back and forth with this a little bit? Would that make you feel happy?

[Radar]

Sure. If you want to make yourself look more foolish while claiming that those who attack others are the victims when they get their comeuppance. Knock yourself out. You'll still be W-R-O-N-G

[Aliantha]

As I said, regardless of the reason, you have still violated the other persons right to live.

Either we all have that right or we don't. If the answer is yes, as you so vehemently state, then anyone infringing on that right to live is violating that right. I'm not even entering into the argument about what right you have to shoot someone else. I'm simply saying that if you do shoot someone, you're ending their life, therefore you have violated their right to live.

It's a pretty simple concept. One I'd have thought even you could manage to get your head around.

[Radar]

If I take part in a dangerous activity like Lion taming or hang gliding, I am agreeing to the dangers involved in that activity. If I die while taking part in that activity, I have nobody to blame but myself. If I'm killed by a lion (which does not have human sentience) the lion has not violated my right to life. If I crash my hang glider, the rock I hit is not violating my right to life. I have wasted my own life.

If I play baseball and get hit in the head with a pitch and die, nobody has violated my right to life. I consented to the dangers that are inherent in in that activity.

If I attempt to rape someone and they take a gun out of their purse and shoot me, they have not violated my right to life. I died as a result of taking part in a dangerous activity. Someone else defended their life and their person. The loss of my life is my own fault.

[classicman]

guess not

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Actually, Aliantha, that is not accurate at all.

Civil "shootings to stop" are justified in both law and morals by whether the individual shot must immediately stop what he is doing or innocents suffer grave harm or death. You as the defensive shooter are not taking a right from him, but enforcing the very proper rights of others, securing these from his trespass. Properly understood morals place innocent life over not-so-innocent life. They value human goodness over continued respiration -- as a ramification of the whole idea of free will. Hard to argue against, isn't it? It is always possible to live a life so terribly badly as to destroy other lives around one, and we good folk have to have a means to pluck up such bad seeds.

[Urruke]

while they will probly never be able to abolish the right, they are trying to put a cap on it. Like handguns are already illegal to own in DC. And they are trying to get it for the whole state, and it'll probly go over to all states. But they won't be able to outlaw rifles. Lots of people hunt and the goverment makes quite abit of money off of issuing hunting permits, and the majority of people hunt with rifles (though I perfur the bow, even though it's more expensive it requires actual skill to kill something.. which a gun needs little) though you don't use a pistol to go hunting, so why need one period? "makes you feel save" well it only makes you feel save in use as a protection till you actually shoot someone... then it's a violation of the law. Since you Shot someone.. seems rather contradictory to me. Wanting it for protection if you can't use it.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Urruke

while they will probly never be able to abolish the right, they are trying to put a cap on it. Like handguns are already illegal to own in DC. And they are trying to get it for the whole state, and it'll probly go over to all states. But they won't be able to outlaw rifles. Lots of people hunt and the goverment makes quite abit of money off of issuing hunting permits, and the majority of people hunt with rifles (though I perfur the bow, even though it's more expensive it requires actual skill to kill something.. which a gun needs little) though you don't use a pistol to go hunting, so why need one period? "makes you feel save" well it only makes you feel save in use as a protection till you actually shoot someone... then it's a violation of the law. Since you Shot someone.. seems rather contradictory to me. Wanting it for protection if you can't use it.

The law in DC is unconstitutional and will be overturned. No government at any level has any authority to "cap" our ownership. It doesn't matter if I want a gun to hunt, to go for target practice, to keep them as collectibles, or to prop up a wobbly table leg. My reasons for owning a gun are irrelevant. My right to own a gun isn't to be questioned, limited, or infringed upon. My reasons for owning a gun are completely irrelevant unless I commit a crime with one.

[slang]

Originally Posted by Radar

........... are completely irrelevant unless I commit a crime with one.

Quick question here Radar. If someone has committed a crime with one in the past, say armed robbery ( of someone without a gun ), does that person still have the right to own a gun?

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by Urruke

(though I perfur the bow, even though it's more expensive it requires actual skill to kill something.. which a gun needs little)

So, I leave for a couple days, come back and..wow....I have of this reading to catch up on. I say to myself, "Self, all this circular arguing is going on...why not just skim and read like, every third post." I glance at this thing which says that shooting a gun takes relatively little skill.

The only thing I can ask is: have you tried, a 5.56mm round at 600 yards with a 7.5 mph to 10 mph full value cross wind?

I'm still amazed at how such a simple question as the first post asks, can generate so much talk. I"m amazed I've participated as much as I have. I'm amazed at how much more has been talked about in the few days of my absence.

Reminds me of a movie line: "98% of the people in the world are asleep..the other 2% are amazed."

I figured I'd interject a little more off topic drivel for the reading audiences perusal.

Everyone who likes coke should switch to pepsi, now!

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, no, no, everyone who likes coke should switch to crack, now.