Shower Thought about Guns - I don't really care that much about them - I'm not scared of them - I've shot a few - I'm just not into them - death and destruction are not appealing to me - but its weird how many people gather around the 2nd amendment when no one uses it to stand up to gov't oppression

HeyImSancho · 2019-05-19T00:07:13+00:00

"Halps", it's at this time especially with the you suck towards "Brown People" remarks, and in other threads where you've attacked me by bringing up how I must be cruel, or is it hateful towards of all things,disabled people, or how in this thread, where you attempted to twist my simple clarification of what a Right is, turning it tantamount to an approval for mass murder, that I feel I must re-post my 2 original comments for this thread:

POST 1 "I'm a large man, larger, and unfortunately by way of genetics at times can appear menacing; it's true about inadequate people wanting to prove themselves by trying to intimidate someone that others would have a little bit of hesitation in messing with. Yet, at the same time, I'm a disabled man, and hurt; my gun has saved my life. After you've been put feet to fire in trial for your life, do you realize how nice it is to have an equalizer."

POST 2 "Also, on the note of 'what to do', a gun is defensive, a gun does have sporting merit; to be able to calculate out at distance, and hit the target, well anyone try it, it takes skill. As to what to do to change, or save the world? Learn, share, and educate. Try to help others. Be the change on your own microcosmic level. A gun doesn't change the world, a voice does."

It's clear why I participated in this thread from my first post, the second post immediately afterwards lays out exactly what I personally see the use of guns being, and what works for greater change; yet your response is 'NUCLEAR WEAPONS BROWN PEOPLE KILL".

Sensationalize off of regular MSM commie jargin much? I think you could've hit a few more talking point cliches!

HeyImSancho · 2019-05-18T23:49:43+00:00

Um, yes, I comprehend that a "Right" is a legally( and naturally) defined term; You don't(again, only commented to you figuring you'd like to not sound ignorant, but thought I did in a respectful way). I comprehend that you don't want to recognize that, I also recognize your view of a right is as a privilege; you also denote that you think Americans are unique in the fact they want freedom, while the rest of the world in your view accepts their freedom as what they won't get in trouble doing.(funny how everyone wants to be in America for freedom, and gimmies, EVEN WITH IN YOUR VIEW ALL THE ARMED (BROWN PEOPLE HATING) WHITE GENOCIDAL MONSTERS!!!)

Halps, in regards to America, and it's viewpoint on the blanketed groups of as you say, "Brown People", I'm in complete disagreement. America as far as a melting pot is unique in the extra privileges, and rights bestowed on those very people to aid in their advancement in this society. Go live in a 3rd world for a while, and you'll learn; racism is alive, well, and strong in every 3rd worse shithole, at least that I've been in(been in several), and it's the people there that do it to each other.

As far as my Rights? Yes, I capitalize them, I hold mine sacred. If you would go re-read what I wrote, I never advocated for anyone other than trying to show someone who thinks a right is a privilege, that they're not. A Right, can also be viewed as the physical observation of what any living sentient being can naturally do without constraint.(I actually covered this angle already thinking you seriously couldn't grasp that it's a defined legal term. I kinda got your 'care' when you responded with, 'nuclear weapons!!!!', why not pink fuzzy lasers, they could be just as earth shattering, right?)

I guess on that point, and so you quit looking stupid every time you make a sensational claim about how I'm an evil old genetically superior white male such as yourself, I'm a disabled brown people.

LMAO, this is a great thread!

HopeThatHalps · 2019-05-18T20:29:54+00:00

The legal definition of a "right" is ambiguous by definition. What a person thinks of a "natural" or "God given" right will depend on their personal religion and philosophical beliefs. Politicians get to write the words as to what is and isn't a right, and then courts get the come up with their own interpretation of the words.

You think it's a natural or "God-given" right of brown people not to be murdered by you, but that hasn't always been the case in the history of mankind, or even America, where people of different skin colors are treated with less regard than animals we hunt for sport.

That fact that you capitlized the word "rights" tells me that you have an entirely dogmatic view of the subject, that you make assumptions about the world, and hold those assumptions beyond reproach.

wizzwizz4 · 2019-05-18T20:21:55+00:00

Private mode?

HeyImSancho · 2019-05-18T18:19:50+00:00

You said you will defend a person's rights. What if we had the right to kill brown people? We live in a day and age where people seem to get away with it, free of legal consequences. Would you support that right, were it codified, just because it becomes a "right"?

My point is that you can look up "right" in the dictionary, and pretend it's something magical, but at the end of the day it's just a tenuous construct administered by a government.

Halps, it's always brown people with you when you cannot hold your own; telling, and more.

My only point is that you, among many claim to want to raise the standards of this site, and this very thread, where by you demonstrated you don't know what a right is, and when someone kindly gives you the legal definition, as used in law, as it's a legally binding term in law!? Well fuck, here we are several posts later. and it's down to killing brown people? Shit, bring up aborted babies too... oh wait, that's what the other group does... PATHETIC!!! LOL.

I'll answer your question though, as I comprehend what my Rights are, I would protect myself with all force necessary against any threat; that's my god given right. I would expect as you say, 'brown people', to do the same!

I wish I could say it was a waste of time, but this thread is a great example of leftist time wasting.

HopeThatHalps · 2019-05-18T17:56:48+00:00

You said you will defend a person's rights. What if we had the right to kill brown people? We live in a day and age where people seem to get away with it, free of legal consequences. Would you support that right, were it codified, just because it becomes a "right"?

My point is that you can look up "right" in the dictionary, and pretend it's something magical, but at the end of the day it's just a tenuous construct administered by a government.

HeyImSancho · 2019-05-18T17:47:21+00:00

Halps, I don't care to debate guns; I simply saw the word 'right', and a new communist 'privilege' style definition, and figured 'hey, I've got the real legal definition, I'll share'. Which is what i did, and will do again.

HopeThatHalps · 2019-05-18T17:22:47+00:00

Halps, a Right cannot be taken away, it can be surrendered. You say,"You offer no reason why owning guns should be a right". I can say, fine, and okay, mankind lives to restrict. But, I've made my own improvised gun, and charge in the past; myself, and others have the know how; so even with restrictions, it's still available. Can you stop me from doing that? No. It's a right, as you cannot stop anyone.....

You can make your own illegal biological toxins, or your own illegal drugs. That you made it is irrelevant.

Interestingly enough, I've got an older 3rd edition Black's law dictionary, that describes a right, as more of an observation of other living things, and through whatever means created them, their rights, are what they can do naturally, and as an action.... Weird legal definition, but that's basically it.

OK, but what is natural about owning a killing machine, and not, say, your own nuclear weapon?

The 2nd Amendment covers the right to arms, and defense. This doesn't necessarily force anyone to stick to 'guns'. Look at countries where guns are banned for the most part. The UK??? They've got campaigns now to turn in knives, but what will that solve? People can still make them; the concept of a right, does precede governmental paper.

Guns make murder easy, easier than does a knife. Likewise, a nuclear weapon makes mass human extermination very easy, which is why you can't have one.

I honestly don't care at this point what you think my goal here is, I read where you wrote a right can be taken, or is 'temporary', and my only point was that it's not, and by the literal lawful definition can only be willingly surrendered....... Yet, by human will power alone, any sort of armament can be created, and used when, or as needed.

You say you want to protect people's rights, that's a hollow sentiment if you can't defend the "right" itself. To say that rights are self evident is to switch your brain into the "off" position.

magnora7 · 2019-05-18T04:53:15+00:00

Yeah some of his comments have been really out-of-context lately. It's a person running it though, we asked them to stop posting articles over 2 years old in /s/news and they did.

HeyImSancho · 2019-05-18T01:17:22+00:00

Halps, a Right cannot be taken away, it can be surrendered. You say,"You offer no reason why owning guns should be a right". I can say, fine, and okay, mankind lives to restrict. But, I've made my own improvised gun, and charge in the past; myself, and others have the know how; so even with restrictions, it's still available. Can you stop me from doing that? No. It's a right, as you cannot stop anyone.....

Interestingly enough, I've got an older 3rd edition Black's law dictionary, that describes a right, as more of an observation of other living things, and through whatever means created them, their rights, are what they can do naturally, and as an action.... Weird legal definition, but that's basically it.

The 2nd Amendment covers the right to arms, and defense. This doesn't necessarily force anyone to stick to 'guns'. Look at countries where guns are banned for the most part. The UK??? They've got campaigns now to turn in knives, but what will that solve? People can still make them; the concept of a right, does precede governmental paper.

I honestly don't care at this point what you think my goal here is, I read where you wrote a right can be taken, or is 'temporary', and my only point was that it's not, and by the literal lawful definition can only be willingly surrendered....... Yet, by human will power alone, any sort of armament can be created, and used when, or as needed.

Mnemonic · 2019-05-17T20:49:23+00:00

It's long been known (at least to me and brought to attention a long time ago) that this is a bot, if there is some 'russia'-shizzle going on it's this bot. Appart from mutiple same-comments, it seems to get triggered on certain words and just spews an unrelated riddle. Over all the comments giving, it's main purpose seems to be to trigger as many people as it can.

A fun exercise: write a reply about [random subject] and see the reply (might take a few days).

EDIT: I can't (anymore) test my 'overall rating' because after i've blocked it, I can't see/visit the userpage anymore, out of sight out of mind.

HopeThatHalps · 2019-05-17T20:27:52+00:00

Away from what a Right is, as it's not something temporary;

Anything that can be changed is temporary by definition. Don't be fooled by jargon.

The 2nd Amendment is the Right to Arm yourself. Take guns away, humans have the ultimate weapon that with good nutrition, and dedication to knowledge cannot be taken away, and that's complex critical thinking skills.

To apply critical thinking skills to what you say, "Why should someone have the right to own machines that make the taking other people's lives extremely easy?", we already see adaptations with improvised munitions, and other machinery away from guns in many countries.

You offer no reason why owning guns should be a right.

HeyImSancho · 2019-05-17T18:37:59+00:00

You've lost me. I was explaining to you what a 'Right' is as opposed to 'privilege'. The Bill of Rights, the 1st 10, are considered to be sacred god(whatever, or none you subscribe to) given; they're simply enumerated. My usage of 'natural world rights', is simply my attempt at moving this out of the realm of 'religious' dogma, and moving it into something that can be seen.

Many of the folks named as 'Founders' made it very clear what Rights were, and where they came from by way of 'animal' comparisons.

Away from what a Right is, as it's not something temporary; let's talk guns. The 2nd Amendment is the Right to Arm yourself. Take guns away, humans have the ultimate weapon that with good nutrition, and dedication to knowledge cannot be taken away, and that's complex critical thinking skills.

To apply critical thinking skills to what you say, "Why should someone have the right to own machines that make the taking other people's lives extremely easy?", we already see adaptations with improvised munitions, and other machinery away from guns in many countries. Rights are hard to really take; especially when it's somewhat laid out by 'the law of the land/jungle'.

DrStrangelove · 2019-05-17T06:05:14+00:00

Huh, just tried to sign it, email confirmation never arrived. Tried again with a different email, same. Also, the petition was started May 4 and only has 1220 signatures... smells fishy. At least I'm on a list now, gonna kick back and wait for my drone-strike.

HopeThatHalps · 2019-05-17T05:35:44+00:00

I don't see any mention of the sexual assault charges in this petition.

HopeThatHalps · 2019-05-17T05:24:38+00:00

Does a badger not have the same rights, or that of any animal?

You've lost me.

Also, what is the difference between a right, and a privilege in your opinion?

IMO, the distinction is just rhetorical. Rights are intended to be permanent, timeless and even self evident, but ultimately they're none of those things. Legal rights are granted by a government, the same as a legal privileges. If you say you're "defending someone's rights", you're not really defending the person per se, you're defending an existing law (or constitutional provision), and never actually offering a reason as to why you're doing so. Why should someone have the right to own machines that make the taking other people's lives extremely easy?

HeyImSancho · 2019-05-17T04:35:25+00:00

Does a badger not have the same rights, or that of any animal?

Also, what is the difference between a right, and a privilege in your opinion?

HopeThatHalps · 2019-05-17T02:53:50+00:00

A Right is Inalienable; The US Constitution was felt by many to be a piece of contrition, or concession of control back to England. The "Bill of Rights", were amendments, added to, in order to get the revolutionists back on board, by literally listing out Natural Inalienable Rights.

So by your way of thinking, if the Constitution is ammended, it can never be un-amended. I hope you can simply realize that makes no sense. Talk about a person's "rights" being beyond reproach is just rhetoric. People are deprived of these "rights" on a regular basis, for example, when someone is sent to prison.

This confusing notion of rights that you're granted by God himself is something that Americans are indoctrinated with from an early age, but most people in the world don't share in this confusion, and see things more for how they really are; defined more by what you can't do, rather than what you can.

HeyImSancho · 2019-05-17T02:26:38+00:00

Well before there was a second amendment, it wasn't a right. Something can't be inalienable and temporaneous at the same time. If I disagree with a law, then I disagree with a law. If I disagree with a constitutional amendment, then I disagree with a constitutional amendment. I'm not going to defend it just because it exists.

A Right is Inalienable; The US Constitution was felt by many to be a piece of contrition, or concession of control back to England. The "Bill of Rights", were amendments, added to, in order to get the revolutionists back on board, by literally listing out Natural Inalienable Rights.

The Bill of Rights, not the Constitution, simply enumerates these 'natural world/god given rights'. Any animal in nature has all of the Rights as we know them.

Granted, we live in a controlled world, where you can, and will die in exercising those natural world Inalienable Rights.

A little side jaunt on this: Black's Law Dictionary 3rd Edition:

Definitions:

Inalienable: Not subject to alienation; The Characteristic of those things which cannot be bought, or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e.g. liberty.

Inalienable Rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without consent of the one possessing such rights.

sodasplash · 2019-05-17T00:19:07+00:00

My take on these online petitions is that they’re just for industry shills. So you wanna start a covertly industry-backed autism awareness campaign? You make a petition that says “Autism is bad mmmmkay.” And then you get your lobbyist a meeting with an advisor to the director of health and human services and an assistant advisor the President and your lobbyist says to them, “Look guys, here’s a ‘grass roots’ campaign that agrees with everything I just said.”

Then “magically” the President cites a “grass roots” “citizen’s campaign” when he signs off on some major industry payout. The gravy train is too long to believe in conspiracy theories when basic principles of corruption will do.

sodasplash · 2019-05-16T23:02:12+00:00

A lot of things can be done for a lot less. Clearly we agree to disagree.

I hope your desires to ban guns fail and I'm quite certain they will.

wizzwizz4 · 2019-05-16T20:15:47+00:00

Meh, our names are already all on lists for something or other. I don't think the US is corrupt enough to have resources dedicated to going through these lists and silencing people; worst that'll happen is that it'll come up on a background check and (iirc) they're not allowed to use that against you.

When did we forget our dreams?

It's good to remind people, though; it might matter to some: petitions are a public statement of strong support for something that you can't ever revoke. Be certain you agree with what you sign.

HopeThatHalps · 2019-05-16T20:06:32+00:00

Rights are things we consider inalienable and beyond the law. Principled underpinnings of any free society.

Well before there was a second amendment, it wasn't a right. Something can't be inalienable and temporaneous at the same time. If I disagree with a law, then I disagree with a law. If I disagree with a constitutional amendment, then I disagree with a constitutional amendment. I'm not going to defend it just because it exists.

Given that a reduction of the rate of illegal activity involving guns is an unlikely and unprovable outcome of limiting the purchase of guns, you are engaging in a logical fallacy.

Can you cite the specific fallacy? In order to ask that something be made illegal, I don't have to prove anything, a mere hunch is enough. Certain activities have been outlawed for a lot less.

HopeThatHalps · 2019-05-16T20:06:28+00:00

Rights are things we consider inalienable and beyond the law. Principled underpinnings of any free society.

Well before there was a second amendment, it wasn't a right. Something can't be inalienable and temporaneous at the same time. If I disagree with a law, then I disagree with a law. If I disagree with a constitutional amendment, then I disagree with a constitutional amendment. I'm not going to defend it just because it exists.

Given that a reduction of the rate of illegal activity involving guns is an unlikely and unprovable outcome of limiting the purchase of guns, you are engaging in a logical fallacy.

Can you cite the specific fallacy? In order to ask that something be made illegal, I don't have to prove anything, a mere hunch is enough. Certain activities have been outlawed for a lot less.

sodasplash · 2019-05-16T18:50:35+00:00

Rights are things we consider inalienable and beyond the law. Principled underpinnings of any free society.

Given that a reduction of the rate of illegal activity involving guns is an unlikely and unprovable outcome of limiting the purchase of guns, you are engaging in a logical fallacy.

whatever

MODERATORS