If there is no gun show loophole… then this shouldn’t be a problem

[Ginger Ale]

“Strong regulations like this one are not in conflict with the Second Amendment,” the senior official said.​

I suspect the Supremes will be the judge of that.

Wow! Why go to all the trouble saying the Supreme Court isn't bias when you clearly run to them like daddy? ROLF!!

 

[jaeger19]

Gun owners give one of the following excuses to oppose gun control:
You're falling back on excuse #3.1

1. Gun ownership is a "natural" right that supersedes any law or constitution

2. Guns are needed because:
2.1 Some people live so far away from a supermarket, that they need guns to provide food
2.2 Without guns, they'd be murdered/robbed/raped with a day/week/month/year (delete as appropriate)

3. Gun Control is impossible anyway because:
3.1 There are too many guns in circulation even for a country as powerful as the USA to collect
3.2 Even if a gun ban was imposed, law enforcement would refuse to enforce such laws.

Nope.
I agree with number 1.
I agree with 2.
I agree with 3.

And I do so because all facts and logic support all three.

 

[Rich2018]

Nope.
I agree with number 1.
I agree with 2.
I agree with 3.

And I do so because all facts and logic support all three.

Then you support the common excuses given by gun owners to keep their guns

All are just that, excuses
The truth is gun owners have guns just because they like guns.

 

[RF667799]

Then you support the common excuses given by gun owners to keep their guns

All are just that, excuses
The truth is gun owners have guns just because they like guns.

Your contention that you need your SUV is just an excuse. You have it just because it makes your preferred lifestyle convenient.

 

[jaeger19]

Then you support the common excuses given by gun owners to keep their guns

All are just that, excuses
The truth is gun owners have guns just because they like guns.

Yep because they are supported by facts and logic.

Meanwhile you anti gunners think criminals who are contemplating killing kids..will stop because it's a gun free zone..
Or better yet criminals will turn in their firearms ...which they risk 10 years in jail to obtain..
You think everyone lives in an area where the police are right next door.
When in some places they are hours away.

Even the cdc had to admit that there are hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses.

And you think the best way to prevent a coyote from killing my calf. 400 yards away..
Is to "shoot it with a shotgun!!".
You have zero clue about how firearms and hunting benefit game management and keep healthy wildlife populations.


Heck..you admit that idaho with all its guns is far safer than ny state..
Yet you want to disarm them.

Antigun people have neither logic nor basic common sense.

 

[Rich2018]

Yep because they are supported by facts and logic.

As I said, you don't know what logic is

But go on, show you "logic" thought process. Begin with your premises (you do know what premises are right?), then indicate your "logical" conclusion

Also please indicate if you're using deductive or inductive logic

Example of a logical conclusion:
Premise 1: All cats are grey
Premise 2: Sally has a cat
Logical conclusion: Therefore Sally's cat is grey

Example of an illogical conclusion:
Premise 1: All cat's a grey
Premise 2: Sally has a pet
(illogical) Conclusion: therefore Sally's pet is a cat


So go on then, show us this intellect that got you a medical degree and a license to practice medicine, show us your logical thought process.

 

[RF667799]

As I said, you don't know what logic is

But go on, show you "logic" thought process. Begin with your premises (you do know what premises are right?), then indicate your "logical" conclusion

Also please indicate if you're using deductive or inductive logic

Example of a logical conclusion:
Premise 1: All cats are grey
Premise 2: Sally has a cat
Logical conclusion: Therefore Sally's cat is grey

Example of an illogical conclusion:
Premise 1: All cat's a grey
Premise 2: Sally has a pet
(illogical) Conclusion: therefore Sally's pet is a cat


So go on then, show us this intellect that got you a medical degree and a license to practice medicine, show us your logical thought process.

He probably didn't depend on a false premise to try to make a point. Nor a circular argument.

 

[jaeger19]

As I said, you don't know what logic is

But go on, show you "logic" thought process. Begin with your premises (you do know what premises are right?), then indicate your "logical" conclusion

Also please indicate if you're using deductive or inductive logic

Example of a logical conclusion:
Premise 1: All cats are grey
Premise 2: Sally has a cat
Logical conclusion: Therefore Sally's cat is grey

Example of an illogical conclusion:
Premise 1: All cat's a grey
Premise 2: Sally has a pet
(illogical) Conclusion: therefore Sally's pet is a cat


So go on then, show us this intellect that got you a medical degree and a license to practice medicine, show us your logical thought process.

1. To codify a right into law...people have to BELIEVE such a right exists naturally.
If not..where did this collective idea come from?( inductive reasoning)
Governments don't create rights.. they protect those that society believes are rights.
2. The right to protect oneself is one such right. Only a small percentage of people believe they don't have the right to protect themselves (.deductive reasoning )
3. Owning a weapon such as a firearm is a natural extension of such a right. Without a firearm..the ability to protect oneself is extremely limited. ..( deductive reasoning)
This owning a firearm is a natural right.
And as such was codified into the BILL of RIGHTS

 

[Rich2018]

1. To codify a right into law...people have to BELIEVE such a right exists naturally

Wrong, merely the bodies that ratify a constitutional amendment do.

If not..where did this collective idea come from?( inductive reasoning)

Please explain how inductive or deductive reasoning allows you to conclude this.

Governments don't create rights.. they protect those that society believes are rights.

Yes they do. With out legal backing a right doesn't exist.

But you have failed to demonstrate any logical thought process. So again:

State your premises, then show your "logical" conclusion

And please indicate if you're using deductive or inductive logic.

 

[jaeger19]

Wrong, merely the bodies that ratify a constitutional amendment do.



Please explain how inductive or deductive reasoning allows you to conclude this.



Yes they do. With out legal backing a right doesn't exist.

But you have failed to demonstrate any logical thought process. So again:

State your premises, then show your "logical" conclusion

And please indicate if you're using deductive or inductive logic.

1. Really? Please explain what makes up that " body that ratified an amendment".

Would that be individuals?..

2. Simple. Rights have to come from somewhere. They don't originate from government. They originate from the human mind. And observationally..across cultures.. certain beliefs in rights seems pretty universal. Such as the right to protect oneself. ( Inductive reasoning..based on a series of large observations.)


3. If rights don't exist unless a government protects them..
Then how can a government " violate" a person's rights?
I guarantee that the vast number of humans on this planet would agree that the nazi government in Germany violated the rights of jews et al. Despite the fact what tgey did was of course legal and sanctioned by Germany. In fact there were multi country trials established to convict nazi war criminals. Therefore rights DO exist despite them not being recognized by a government.
( inductive reasoning based on observations)

4. The right to self protection obviously is effected by what means you have to defend yourself. Firearms are a great equalizer. Making it possible for a 110 pd woman to effectively protect herself from a 200 pound male. Thus firearms ( arms) are by extension of the right to self protection..a natural right as well. Which of course has been codified into the BILL of RIGHTS. ( both inductive and deductive reasoning).

So there you go rich.

However..it needs to be pointed out that you..in no way..have the ability to critique anyone on their logic

 

[CLAX1911]

Wow! Why go to all the trouble saying the Supreme Court isn't bias when you clearly run to them like daddy? ROLF!!

They are biased toward the Constitution.

 

[Cosmo]

loophole in gun sales to criminals.

So if it doesn’t exist, then this shouldn’t be a problem, should it?

I highly doubt the actual text and effect of the law will be "outlaw gun show loophole." That's just how it's fed to the general public in the media.

 

[Rich2018]

Please explain what makes up that " body that ratified an amendment".

The ratifying body - usually the state legislature in the case of US Constitutional amendments.

Rights have to come from somewhere. They don't originate from government. They originate from the human mind.

Same as laws
Someone drafts it, the legislature debates and passes it, and in the case of the USA, the president signs it into law (or has Congressional veto override).

If rights don't exist unless a government protects them..
Then how can a government " violate" a person's rights?

You confuse legally given "rights", with "human rights"
"Human rights" are not really "rights" at all, merely an generally accepted (by the Western democracies at least), of a minimum standard that a government must treat it's people

If a government is accused of violating "human rights", it is not being accused of refusing to let people vote, to not incriminate themselves or not being able to have a gun etc
But that the government is mistreating them, often to the point of death
Basically no "right" granted by the Constitution is included in "human rights".

The right to self protection obviously is effected by what means you have to defend yourself.

US courts normally accept this as a "right", but it is not universal. Often you have a requirement to retire
Some countries do not accept this as a "right" at all.

Firearms are a great equalizer

Firearms overwhelmingly benefit the assailant.

However..it needs to be pointed out that you..in no way..have the ability to critique anyone on their logic

As previously stated, you don't know what logic is

For example:
Premise #1: All Italians are green
Premise #2: Mario is an Italian
Logical conclusion: Mario is green

Is there, in your mind, anything wrong with that logic ?

Is it an example of deductive or inductive logic ?

 

[jaeger19]

The ratifying body - usually the state legislature in the case of US Constitutional amendments.



Same as laws
Someone drafts it, the legislature debates and passes it, and in the case of the USA, the president signs it into law (or has Congressional veto override).



You confuse legally given "rights", with "human rights"
"Human rights" are not really "rights" at all, merely an generally accepted (by the Western democracies at least), of a minimum standard that a government must treat it's people

If a government is accused of violating "human rights", it is not being accused of refusing to let people vote, to not incriminate themselves or not being able to have a gun etc
But that the government is mistreating them, often to the point of death
Basically no "right" granted by the Constitution is included in "human rights".



US courts normally accept this as a "right", but it is not universal. Often you have a requirement to retire
Some countries do not accept this as a "right" at all.



Firearms overwhelmingly benefit the assailant.



As previously stated, you don't know what logic is

For example:
Premise #1: All Italians are green
Premise #2: Mario is an Italian
Logical conclusion: Mario is green

Is there, in your mind, anything wrong with that logic ?

Is it an example of deductive or inductive logic ?

1. You mean the one made up of individuals....lmao.
2. Except laws aren't as universal as rights.
While there is a lot of debate over laws. There is little debate when it comes to say the right to privacy .
Or tge right to protect oneself.


3. Nope. No confusion by me. The right to protect oneself is a human right. The right of self determination is a human right.
These tie in with the right to make medical decisions for ourselves..to bear arms etc.

4. The right to protect oneself is pretty universal. Very few people will say that if someone tries to kill you it's your duty to let them.. whether a government recognizes this is immaterial as I've stated.

5. Please examine how my assailant benefits from me having a firearm to protect myself..
( you silly goose).
Lol.

6. As previously stated..you have zero capacity to critique anyone's logic.
Much less mine...lmao.

7. It's neither. Because not all Italians are green.
You are so so lost ...are you okay Rick?
Do you smell burnt toast. ?

 

[Rich2018]

1. You mean the one made up of individuals

What else would you expect an organizational body to be made up of ?
We've evolved a bit politically since Caligula made his horse a senator.

Except laws aren't as universal as rights.

Not all laws are rights
But all legally recognized rights are laws.

The right to protect oneself is a human right.

Says who ?

The right of self determination is a human right.

Again, says who ?

These tie in with the right to make medical decisions for ourselves..to bear arms etc.

No they don't and you don't have an absolute right to make medical decisions for yourself
The reversal of Wade Vs Roe illustrates that
The right to bear arms is granted by the 2nd Amendment. If it were repealed, then you would have no such right to bear or keep arms.

The right to protect oneself is pretty universal.

"After a farmer shot a man who broke into his home, French President Emmanuel Macron said the French people do not have the right to self-defense, and the man should have instead let the police handle the incident."

'I am opposed to self-defense' – Macron says farmer had no right to kill a burglar who broke into his home

After a farmer shot a man who broke into his home, French President Emmanuel Macron said the French people do not have the right to self-defense, and the man should have instead let the police handle the incident. Macron made his controversial remarks on Europe 1 news channel while broadcasting...

rmx.news

I think you will find that France is part of the Universe.

Please examine how my assailant benefits from me having a firearm to protect myself

Please examine how you benefit from someone deeming you to be an assailant and shooting you, when all you were doing was arguing over a parking space.

As previously stated..you have zero capacity to critique anyone's logic.
Much less mine...lmao.

Well at least I know what logic is, both inductive and deductive, whereas you clearly don't.

It's neither. Because not all Italians are green.

FAIL

There's nothing wrong with that logic. Nothing at all, thus proving that you don't know anything about logic
And yes the logical conclusion was either deductive or inductive. But you don't know what logic is, let alone the difference between deductive/inductive (again proving that you're no doctor, indeed your education has never been past high school.

 

[jaeger19]

What else would you expect an organizational body to be made up of ?
We've evolved a bit politically since Caligula made his horse a senator.



Not all laws are rights
But all legally recognized rights are laws.



Says who ?



Again, says who ?



No they don't and you don't have an absolute right to make medical decisions for yourself
The reversal of Wade Vs Roe illustrates that
The right to bear arms is granted by the 2nd Amendment. If it were repealed, then you would have no such right to bear or keep arms.



"After a farmer shot a man who broke into his home, French President Emmanuel Macron said the French people do not have the right to self-defense, and the man should have instead let the police handle the incident."

'I am opposed to self-defense' – Macron says farmer had no right to kill a burglar who broke into his home

After a farmer shot a man who broke into his home, French President Emmanuel Macron said the French people do not have the right to self-defense, and the man should have instead let the police handle the incident. Macron made his controversial remarks on Europe 1 news channel while broadcasting...

rmx.news

I think you will find that France is part of the Universe.



Please examine how you benefit from someone deeming you to be an assailant and shooting you, when all you were doing was arguing over a parking space.



Well at least I know what logic is, both inductive and deductive, whereas you clearly don't.



FAIL

There's nothing wrong with that logic. Nothing at all, thus proving that you don't know anything about logic
And yes the logical conclusion was either deductive or inductive. But you don't know what logic is, let alone the difference between deductive/inductive (again proving that you're no doctor, indeed your education has never been past high school.

1. That's right..individuals whose minds all agreed that there were inalienable rights..natural rights.
2. Um no.
3. Says the vast vast majority if people in the world.
4. Says the vast majority of people in the world.
5. Yes you do have that right. The reversal of roe v wade is a violation of that right.
But that right exists..even when violated..which is why rights exist outside government.

6. The right to bear arms is a natural right. The right is protected by tge second amendment.
The framers of the us constitution were afraid that people would misread the bill of rights as meaning ONLY those rights in the bill were granted to the people.
That's why some argued against a bill of rights. The compromise was the 9th and 10th amendment.

"Amendment Nine to the Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791. It clarifies that the document is not a comprehensive list of every right of the citizen, and that the yet-unnamed rights are entitled to protection by the law. The original text is written as such:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 9 – “Enumerated Rights of the People”

Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 9 – “Enumerated Rights of the People”. Steel engraving of the “Old City Hall” in New York City, where the Bill of Rights was proposed before the 1st United States Congress, 1855. (New York Public Library) Amendment Nine to the Constitution was ratified on...

www.reaganlibrary.gov

7. Yet the man thought he was within his rights..why? Because he along with most other people recognize the right to self defense.
I am quite sure if macron was in a situation where he was attacked and needed to defend himself..or his children..I doubt he would let them or himself be killed.
8. Umm..you make no sense.
An assailant breaks into my house..and tries to kill me...please explain how my being armed benefits my assailant.
9. Umm rich..
It starts with a fallacy..that " all Italians are green".

That's not a fact.

Thus not logical.

 

[Rich2018]

That's right..individuals whose minds all agreed that there were inalienable rights..natural rights.

Yeah, Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (unless you're a woman, Indian or slave). It seems god was a little discriminatory in those days when it came to rights...

Sorry, but unless a "right" is backed by law, then you don't have it
For instance, in the USA, you don't have a right to education or healthcare, whereas you legally do have those rights in some other countries.

Says the vast vast majority if people in the world.

Nope, you don't speak for them, and you most definitely don't speak for the French, who don't have a right to self defense according to their president.
Try again.

Yes you do have that right. The reversal of roe v wade is a violation of that right.

No, it's a removal of the right to an abortion
QED: In the USA, you don't have the right over your own body.

The right to bear arms is a natural right.

Of course it isn't, it is merely a right supported in law by some countries, the USA being one of them
If the 2nd Amendment were repealed, you would not have the right to bear arms.

An assailant breaks into my house..and tries to kill me...please explain how my being armed benefits my assailant.

Because a law allowing you to be armed either de jure or de facto, allows him to be armed.

It starts with a fallacy..that " all Italians are green".

Irrelevant - that's not the logical conclusion, but a premise
The fact that one (or more) of the premises are wrong, does not affect the soundness of the logical conclusion

There is NOTHING wrong with that logic, nothing at all
That you think there is, merely proves you know nothing of logic

What if the premises concerned an obscure species of amphibian, that you had NO knowledge of, all you can do is derive a logical conclusion, based on the premises you're given

And you still don't know if it was deductive or inductive logic.

 

[jaeger19]

Yeah, Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (unless you're a woman, Indian or slave). It seems god was a little discriminatory in those days when it came to rights...

Sorry, but unless a "right" is backed by law, then you don't have it
For instance, in the USA, you don't have a right to education or healthcare, whereas you legally do have those rights in some other countries.



Nope, you don't speak for them, and you most definitely don't speak for the French, who don't have a right to self defense according to their president.
Try again.



No, it's a removal of the right to an abortion
QED: In the USA, you don't have the right over your own body.



Of course it isn't, it is merely a right supported in law by some countries, the USA being one of them
If the 2nd Amendment were repealed, you would not have the right to bear arms.



Because a law allowing you to be armed either de jure or de facto, allows him to be armed.



Irrelevant - that's not the logical conclusion, but a premise
The fact that one (or more) of the premises are wrong, does not affect the soundness of the logical conclusion

There is NOTHING wrong with that logic, nothing at all
That you think there is, merely proves you know nothing of logic

What if the premises concerned an obscure species of amphibian, that you had NO knowledge of, all you can do is derive a logical conclusion, based on the premises you're given

And you still don't know if it was deductive or inductive logic.

1. Yes. Rich. People will act to curtail others rights at times. Doesn't mean that rights don't exist naturally.
2. You may not be able to express a right or enjoy a right because some or a law VIOLATES your right.

But how can a law violate a right you say doesn't exist because it's not protected?

And actually in the us you have a right to education and healthcare. In fact there are laws that protect that right.
"Equal Protection Clause
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment provides that a state may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It applies to public elementary and secondary schools, as they are considered to be state actors"
Healthcare
"But, emergency departments are unique—anyone who has an emergency must be treated or stabilized, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. The patient protection that makes this possible is a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). "

Understanding EMTALA

Emergency departments are unique— anyone who has an emergency must be treated or stabilized, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. The patient protection that makes this possible is a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).

www.acep.org

3. Actually rich..the FRENCH DO BELIEVE THE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE.

"Article 122-5 of the Penal Code says "a person who, faced with an unjustified attack on themselves or a third person, simultaneously commits an act necessary to legitimate defence, shall incur no criminal liability except where the means employed are disproportionate to the seriousness of the attack."

What is the law on self-defence?

Self defence is legitimate if it occurs at the same time as the threat, is proportionate and the threat is unjustified

www.connexionfrance.com

4. No.. it means that women's right to an abortion is violated..by removing access to that right.

5. If the second was repraled..I would still have the right to bear arms..the government could more easily violate that right however.
6. Rich..explain your logic.
There is a law against an assailant breaking into my home an assaulting/killing me.
Explain your logic on why a person willing to break that law..will obey a law that tgey not be armed while doing it.

7. Umm rich..did you not hear yourself?
So accordingly to you it's logical for an anti vaxxer to go unvaxxed because.

1. Vaccinations cause you to get cancer
2. They don't want cancer
3. Therefore they don't get vaccinated.

Support why the anti vaccination stance is " logical:. Lmao.

8. See above.
And rich...if you had started with a actual FACTs it would be deductive reasoning.

You silly goose. Lmao

 

[Rich2018]

People will act to curtail others rights at times. Doesn't mean that rights don't exist naturally.

No rights exist naturally.

You may not be able to express a right or enjoy a right because some or a law VIOLATES your right

Nope, I can only exercise a right if some law grants it to me.

But how can a law violate a right you say doesn't exist because it's not protected?

A law cannot violate a right that doesn't exist.

And actually in the us you have a right to education and healthcare. In fact there are laws that protect that right.
"Equal Protection Clause
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment provides that a state may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It applies to public elementary and secondary schools, as they are considered to be state actors"

Nope you have no right to healthcare in the USA - hospitals may not deny you life saving treatment but that's NOT the same. I once had an medical emergency and two weeks later I got a bill for $28,000. I took it to my HR who said that the insurance company always drags it proverbial feet. After the insurance company eventually did their thing, I was left with $1500 to pay. But as my HR manager told me, if I hadn't had insurance, I'd have been liable for all $28k
In the USA, healthcare is NOT free !

And no, the 14th Amendment does not grant you an education. Your kids just get to go to school. More proof that you're no doctor, Medical degree are super expensive...again, they're NOT free.
(though President Biden has been eradicating student debt recently, no way would a Republican president do that.)

..the FRENCH DO BELIEVE THE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE.

Last time I checked, President Macron was French.

"Article 122-5 of the Penal Code says "a person who, faced with an unjustified attack on themselves or a third person, simultaneously commits an act necessary to legitimate defence, shall incur no criminal liability except where the means employed are disproportionate to the seriousness of the attack."

So a person, in the USA, never has a duty to retire ?

it means that women's right to an abortion is violated..by removing access to that right.

QED: In the USA, you don't have control over your own body.

If the second was repraled..I would still have the right to bear arms

No you wouldn't.

There is a law against an assailant breaking into my home an assaulting/killing me.

You don't need a gun then do you ?

Explain your logic on why a person willing to break that law..will obey a law that tgey not be armed while doing it.

That's the point, they wouldn't
So if the gun laws allow you to be armed, they will also de jure or de facto allow your intruder to be armed.

So accordingly to you it's logical for an anti vaxxer to go unvaxxed because.

1. Vaccinations cause you to get cancer
2. They don't want cancer
3. Therefore they don't get vaccinated.

OK, detail your logic, starting with your premises, then your logical conclusion (as I showed you earlier). Also state if you're using deductive or inductive logic.

And rich...if you had started with a actual FACTs it would be deductive reasoning.

Logic requires premises not facts. Often you don't know if those premises are true or not
You can only draw a logical conclusion based on the information you have.

Proving again that you don't know anything about logic.

 

[jaeger19]

No rights exist naturally.



Nope, I can only exercise a right if some law grants it to me.



A law cannot violate a right that doesn't exist.



Nope you have no right to healthcare in the USA - hospitals may not deny you life saving treatment but that's NOT the same. I once had an medical emergency and two weeks later I got a bill for $28,000. I took it to my HR who said that the insurance company always drags it proverbial feet. After the insurance company eventually did their thing, I was left with $1500 to pay. But as my HR manager told me, if I hadn't had insurance, I'd have been liable for all $28k
In the USA, healthcare is NOT free !

And no, the 14th Amendment does not grant you an education. Your kids just get to go to school. More proof that you're no doctor, Medical degree are super expensive...again, they're NOT free.
(though President Biden has been eradicating student debt recently, no way would a Republican president do that.)



Last time I checked, President Macron was French.



So a person, in the USA, never has a duty to retire ?



QED: In the USA, you don't have control over your own body.



No you wouldn't.



You don't need a gun then do you ?



That's the point, they wouldn't
So if the gun laws allow you to be armed, they will also de jure or de facto allow your intruder to be armed.



OK, detail your logic, starting with your premises, then your logical conclusion (as I showed you earlier). Also state if you're using deductive or inductive logic.



Logic requires premises not facts. Often you don't know if those premises are true or not
You can only draw a logical conclusion based on the information you have.

Proving again that you don't know anything about logic.

1. Of course they do. How else do they end up being protected.
How else can a right be violated by the law?

2. That's right. EXERCISE that right.
But even you obviously know that right exists...despite the law not allowing you to exercise it.

3. But laws Do violate rights..which means they exist independently of tge law.

4. Sure it is. They guarantee lifesaving care.
In addition I cannot be discriminated against when trying to access healthcare.
You got your healthcare that you sought.

I have a right to bear arms. Does that mean that firearms need to be FREE for me?
No.
Just like right to education doesn't mean that others have to pay for me no matter what degree I want.
It means I cannot be discriminated against.
You Fail again rich.

5. The last time I checked..I cited the French law.
It's clear that macron was an idiot on the subject.
6. Yes. There are laws that violate the right to self protection.
Just like are laws that violate tge right to vote.
Etc.
7. Again..there are laws that violate the right to make your medical decisions.
Doesn't mean those rights don't exist.

8. Yes I would. I just would have a harder time exercising that right.
9. Umm. Please explain..so a person is willing to break a law to murder me...means I don't need a firearm?
Please explain.

10. Actually it's also a violation of the law when an intruder brings a weapon. Including a firearm..

11. I did. And you've never been able to refute my logic.

Tell me rich ..did nazi Germany violate the rights of jews..
Yes or no.
If yes..how? Since according to you..the jews had no rights to violate?

12. I am sorry..so you don't know that not all Italians are green.?
Sure you knew.

You knowingly stated a falsehood. And claimed its logical...

It's logical to use the best available evidence.

Like I said rich ...and you've much demonstrated my premise to be true..
That you have no ability to critique anyone's logic.

 

[Rich2018]

Of course they do. How else do they end up being protected.

Of course they don't
Rights don't need to be protected by law, they need to be GRANTED by law.

How else can a right be violated by the law?

If one law contradicts an earlier law.

That's right. EXERCISE that right.
But even you obviously know that right exists...despite the law not allowing you to exercise it.

But you can't exercise a right that doesn't exist
And a right doesn't exist unless it's backed by law

Which is why people in the UK go to prison for keeping and bearing/keeping firearms, other than the small number that are allowed (or are legally altered to comply with the law)
For some reason, claiming a natural right doesn't seem to help them.

But laws Do violate rights..which means they exist independently of tge law.

When a new law contradicts an existing law.

They guarantee lifesaving care.

ie: they do the bare minimum so you won't die and send you on your way
I have a relative who had a heart attack, but no insurance. The hospital resuscitated, stabilized, and then discharged him. Today he lives with just 40% lung capacity
Healthcare is not free in the USA.

In addition I cannot be discriminated against when trying to access healthcare.

Yes you can, you can be discriminated against if you don't have insurance
Healthcare in the USA is not free - you only get it if you pay for it.

You got your healthcare that you sought.

Only because I paid for it. And I had to show proof of insurance first.

I have a right to bear arms. Does that mean that firearms need to be FREE for me?

So you think you have a right to healthcare because its there if you have the money ?
Sorry, but people who don't have the money would disagree with you.

Just like right to education doesn't mean that others have to pay for me no matter what degree I want.

Er yes it does. Countries that give a right to healthcare and the right to education, don't deny people on the grounds that they can't afford it.

The last time I checked..I cited the French law.

Go on then, cite the French law
Please also re-read the words of the French president.

It's clear that macron was an idiot on the subject.

In your opinion, not in his
And he's the president of France and you're some guy off the internet who tell tall tales about being a doctor, when you're ignorant on so many subjects.

There are laws that violate the right to self protection.

As stated, there is no such right.

Again..there are laws that violate the right to make your medical decisions.
Doesn't mean those rights don't exist.

Yes it does, if you can't exercise a right, then it doesn't exist
See British firearms owners going to jail.

Please explain..so a person is willing to break a law to murder me...means I don't need a firearm?

Please explain how we can pass laws that allow you to be armed but not the criminals or the people who will become criminals.

Actually it's also a violation of the law when an intruder brings a weapon. Including a firearm.

The same laws that allow him to get a gun (legally or otherwise) in the first place.

And you've never been able to refute my logic.

You've never made a logical argument
Do I need to tell you how to do it again
And have you found out the difference between deductive and inductive logic yet ?

did nazi Germany violate the rights of jews..

And did the USA violate the rights of Japanese Americans ?
If so, was the USA able to do this because the Japanese Americans didn't have enough guns ?

I am sorry..so you don't know that not all Italians are green

I am sorry, but not surprised, that you don't know that this is irrelevant, to the example of sound logic I gave, as it's NOT part of the logic.

Just more proof that you don't know what logic is, or how it works.

 

[jaeger19]

Of course they don't
Rights don't need to be protected by law, they need to be GRANTED by law.



If one law contradicts an earlier law.



But you can't exercise a right that doesn't exist
And a right doesn't exist unless it's backed by law

Which is why people in the UK go to prison for keeping and bearing/keeping firearms, other than the small number that are allowed (or are legally altered to comply with the law)
For some reason, claiming a natural right doesn't seem to help them.



When a new law contradicts an existing law.



ie: they do the bare minimum so you won't die and send you on your way
I have a relative who had a heart attack, but no insurance. The hospital resuscitated, stabilized, and then discharged him. Today he lives with just 40% lung capacity
Healthcare is not free in the USA.



Yes you can, you can be discriminated against if you don't have insurance
Healthcare in the USA is not fre
e - you only get it if you pay for it.



Only because I paid for it. And I had to show proof of insurance first.



So you think you have a right to healthcare because its there if you have the money ?
Sorry, but people who don't have the money would disagree with you.



Er yes it does. Countries that give a right to healthcare and the right to education, don't deny people on the grounds that they can't afford it.



Go on then, cite the French law
Please also re-read the words of the French president.



In your opinion, not in his
And he's the president of France and you're some guy off the internet who tell tall tales about being a doctor, when you're ignorant on so many subjects.



As stated, there is no such right.



Yes it does, if you can't exercise a right, then it doesn't exist
See British firearms owners going to jail.



Please explain how we can pass laws that allow you to be armed but not the criminals or the people who will become criminals.



The same laws that allow him to get a gun (legally or otherwise) in the first place.



You've never made a logical argument
Do I need to tell you how to do it again
And have you found out the difference between deductive and inductive logic yet ?



And did the USA violate the rights of Japanese Americans ?
If so, was the USA able to do this because the Japanese Americans didn't have enough guns ?



I am sorry, but not surprised, that you don't know that this is irrelevant, to the example of sound logic I gave, as it's NOT part of the logic.

Just more proof that you don't know what logic is, or how it works.

Oh pooh.
Rich. You have no rebuttal for any of the logic and points I've made.

At this point. You are just " nuh uh".

Look..explain how a right gets codified into law. If tge right doesn't exist in the minds of the people writing the law.

Let's start with that.

 

[Rich2018]

You have no rebuttal for any of the logic and points I've made.

You have made no points of logic
And as stated, you have shown that you don't know what logic is
All you have done is draw personal conclusions from your highly personal opinions.

Look..explain how a right gets codified into law.

Someone in the legislature proposes it, then it gets put to a vote, and then perhaps it is passed into law (though in a presidential style government, presidential approval is usually required, though not always)

For instance if the UK government decided to recognize the right to bear/keep arms, it would require parliament to pass a law granting that as a right (such a law would become part of the UK's written but uncodified constitution).
Until/unless the UK parliament passes such a law, people in the UK will have no right to keep/bear arms.

If tge right doesn't exist in the minds of the people writing the law.

It needs to exist in black & white in the laws passed by those people.

 

[RF667799]

You have made no points of logic
And as stated, you have shown that you don't know what logic is
All you have done is draw personal conclusions from your highly personal opinions.



Someone in the legislature proposes it, then it gets put to a vote, and then perhaps it is passed into law (though in a presidential style government, presidential approval is usually required, though not always)

For instance if the UK government decided to recognize the right to bear/keep arms, it would require parliament to pass a law granting that as a right (such a law would become part of the UK's written but uncodified constitution).
Until/unless the UK parliament passes such a law, people in the UK will have no right to keep/bear arms.



It needs to exist in black & white in the laws passed by those people.

Your use of the term "recognize" indicates the right already exists.

 

[jaeger19]

You have made no points of logic
And as stated, you have shown that you don't know what logic is
All you have done is draw personal conclusions from your highly personal opinions.



Someone in the legislature proposes it, then it gets put to a vote, and then perhaps it is passed into law (though in a presidential style government, presidential approval is usually required, though not always)

For instance if the UK government decided to recognize the right to bear/keep arms, it would require parliament to pass a law granting that as a right (such a law would become part of the UK's written but uncodified constitution).
Until/unless the UK parliament passes such a law, people in the UK will have no right to keep/bear arms.



It needs to exist in black & white in the laws passed by those people.

To recognizeca right..it means it already exists.

Sorry rich..but To exist in " black and white"
It must exist in the minds of those tgat propose the law etc.
The right exists independent of the law.

Did nazi Germany violate the rights of jews ?
If so. How?