Question for 2A supporters... (1 Viewer)

[ryzorsden]

How do you guys feel about Sandy Hook deniers?

And if you are one, why are you a Sandy Hooker denier?

 

[Harshaw]

:inandout:

 

[Lursa]

How do you guys feel about Sandy Hook deniers?

And if you are one, why are you a Sandy Hooker denier?

There are fairly recent threads on that. Check the CT sub-forum

 

[Captain Adverse]

How do you guys feel about Sandy Hook deniers?

And if you are one, why are you a Sandy Hooker denier?

No one who rationally supports the Second Amendment as protecting an individual's right to keep and bear arms will deny that there are going to be people who will abuse this right. There will be criminals, people who suffer from various mental illnesses, terrorists, what have you.

One can denounce any illegal and otherwise improper use of guns without undermining support for the essential right. People are accountable for their own actions, both good and bad.

You punish those who act badly; not those who don't by inhibiting their rights simply because of fear that they might also act badly. NOTE: This applies to ALL inherent rights.

Soo, to your question? Sandy Hook occurred, bad person involved is dead. Denier's silly. End of story.

 

[TurtleDude]

How do you guys feel about Sandy Hook deniers?

And if you are one, why are you a Sandy Hooker denier?

nutcases

Next

 

[Kal'Stang]

How do you guys feel about Sandy Hook deniers?

And if you are one, why are you a Sandy Hooker denier?

Conspiracy theorists, which is what deniers are, shouldn't be listened to.

 

[Rucker61]

How do you guys feel about Sandy Hook deniers?

And if you are one, why are you a Sandy Hooker denier?

They're idiots.

 

[jamesrage]

How do you guys feel about Sandy Hook deniers?

And if you are one, why are you a Sandy Hooker denier?

They are stupid ****-tards. Sandy Hook deniers are probably the same people who think the government masterminded 9-11, thinks big foot exists,Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot JFK, and other nut job conspiracy theories. The vast majority of 2nd amendment supporters know Sandy Hook happened.

 

[Maccabee]

How do you guys feel about Sandy Hook deniers?

And if you are one, why are you a Sandy Hooker denier?

They're scum. How do I know? Because I used to be one of them.

 

[ryzorsden]

They're scum. How do I know? Because I used to be one of them.

Why were you a Sandy Hook denier?

I am seriously curious because I'd like to know how you got there, and of course, how you were able to remove yourself from the Sandy Hooker denier crowd.

 

[Maccabee]

Why were you a Sandy Hook denier?

I am seriously curious because I'd like to know how you got there, and of course, how you were able to remove yourself from the Sandy Hooker denier crowd.

I thought I made a thread telling my back story and was going to link to it, but I can't find it. Long story short, I was into a lot of conspiracy theories at the time. I believed in conspiracy theories because I never researched both sides of the argument. Then I went to the police academy and realized the impossibility of Sandy Hook being an hoax. Since then, I've denounced a lot of conspiracy theories thanks to a YouTube channel called Myles Power.

 

[CFI302]

How do you guys feel about Sandy Hook deniers?

And if you are one, why are you a Sandy Hooker denier?

Same way I feel about those that think gun control laws will prevent things like Sandy Hook.

 

[CFI302]

No one who rationally supports the Second Amendment as protecting an individual's right to keep and bear arms will deny that there are going to be people who will abuse this right. There will be criminals, people who suffer from various mental illnesses, terrorists, what have you.

One can denounce any illegal and otherwise improper use of guns without undermining support for the essential right. People are accountable for their own actions, both good and bad.

You punish those who act badly; not those who don't by inhibiting their rights simply because of fear that they might also act badly. NOTE: This applies to ALL inherent rights.

Soo, to your question? Sandy Hook occurred, bad person involved is dead. Denier's silly. End of story.

When people that want to limit 2nd amendment rights (i.e. - banning what they incorrectly call assault rifles) on law abiding citizens that haven't done the type things used in supporting such bans, it's unacceptable. Those that support such bans are the very ones crying "you shouldn't judge the group as a whole by what a small number do" as they do that very thing.

 

[Rich2018]

No one who rationally supports the Second Amendment as protecting an individual's right to keep and bear arms will deny that there are going to be people who will abuse this right. There will be criminals, people who suffer from various mental illnesses, terrorists, what have you.

One can denounce any illegal and otherwise improper use of guns without undermining support for the essential right. People are accountable for their own actions, both good and bad.

You punish those who act badly; not those who don't by inhibiting their rights simply because of fear that they might also act badly. NOTE: This applies to ALL inherent rights.

Soo, to your question? Sandy Hook occurred, bad person involved is dead. Denier's silly. End of story.

The right to have a gun is man made - there's NOTHING inherent about it.

Yes, every supporter of gun control will acknowledge that the millions of law abiding gun owners will be forced to part with their prized possessions through no fault of their own.

People don't need guns.
Taking them away is unfortunate but the goal is to prevent mass shootings and the thousands and thousands of gun homicides a year.

Next to that, the enjoyment of guns owners shooting their guns is a small price to pay.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I think they are stupid and cruel, on that particular subject at least.

 

[Rich2018]

I think they are stupid and cruel, on that particular subject at least.

To be clear, you're talking about supporters of the 2a ?

 

[Captain Adverse]

The right to have a gun is man made - there's NOTHING inherent about it.

Yes, every supporter of gun control will acknowledge that the millions of law abiding gun owners will be forced to part with their prized possessions through no fault of their own.

People don't need guns.
Taking them away is unfortunate but the goal is to prevent mass shootings and the thousands and thousands of gun homicides a year.

Next to that, the enjoyment of guns owners shooting their guns is a small price to pay.

The right to self-defense is inherent. The right to acquire weapons in order to act in self-defense is also inherent. A gun is man-made. So are all other tools mankind has made throughout the ages for purposes of defense.

Saying, "you may have a right to self-defense, but society can limit that right to tools that are not as effective as those that may be used against you" is the argument of every authoritarian ideologue on both Left and Right.

You don't take a spear, club, or knife to a gun-fight. :coffeepap:

 

[Rucker61]

The right to have a gun is man made - there's NOTHING inherent about it.

Yes, every supporter of gun control will acknowledge that the millions of law abiding gun owners will be forced to part with their prized possessions through no fault of their own.

People don't need guns.
Taking them away is unfortunate but the goal is to prevent mass shootings and the thousands and thousands of gun homicides a year.

Next to that, the enjoyment of guns owners shooting their guns is a small price to pay.

The right to free speech, to not be a slave, to worship who one wishes, evidently those rights are man made, too.

 

[Rucker61]

A gun is man-made. The right to self-defense is inherent. The right to acquire weapons in order to ac tin self-defense is also inherent. A gun is a weapon.

Saying, "you may have a right to self-defense, but society can limit that right to tools that are not as effective as those that may be used against you" is the argument of every authoritarian ideologue on both Left and Right.

Nailed it in one.

 

[Rich2018]

The right to self-defense is inherent....

Says who ?


Some states have a statute of "duty to retreat"
ie: if you can run away, you must do so rather than fight.


The "stand your ground" law in Florida is a good point - it has been used to allow some people to chase down a criminal and kill them. And be acqitted


Show me where is says you have an INHERENT right to self defense.

...the right to acquire weapons in order to act in self-defense is also inherent....

Says who ?

Says it where ?


You're just peddling gun lobby nonsense.

...saying, "you may have a right to self-defense, but society can limit that right to tools that are not as effective as those that may be used against you" is the argument of every authoritarian ideologue on both Left and Right.

You don't take a spear, stick, or knife to a gun-fight...

No, in my states you have a duty to run away and not fight at all.


I'm guessing this comes as news to you.

 

[Rich2018]

The right to free speech, to not be a slave, to worship who one wishes, evidently those rights are man made, too.

Absolutely...who else would have made them ?


Are you claiming some Biblical text as authority on these rights ?


Every "right" you have is given to you by men.


If the "right" of free speech was inherent - come come in many countries it is not recognized ?

If the right not to be a slave is inherent, how come the US Constitution didn't recognize it for almost a century ?


More gun lobby nonsense.

 

[Rucker61]

Absolutely...who else would have made them ?


Are you claiming some Biblical text as authority on these rights ?


Every "right" you have is given to you by men.


If the "right" of free speech was inherent - come come in many countries it is not recognized ?

If the right not to be a slave is inherent, how come the US Constitution didn't recognize it for almost a century ?


More gun lobby nonsense.

That reality is that those who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights believed in those inherent rights, even if they were willing to trample them for others, much the way the British Empire grew to prominence. The Constitution is based upon the existence of such rights; in dealing with Constitutional issues you have to take that into consideration. Simply denying that inherent/divine/natural rights exist, and therefore the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment doesn't really exist will get you nowhere in a court of law.

Are you working towards citizenship?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Says who ?

Says ME, and is "SELF-ENFORCEABLE" by my own will and the desire to preserve my existence and other liberties from all comers individual, foreign and domestic.

Societies are built on the idea of cooperating in securing group members from others who might do them harm. Family groups did so against other family groups, intermarriage created tribes who defended against other tribal groups, and so on. They are all held together by the willingness of those who are members to defend themselves and each other. Just because some societies grant such duties to police and military forces instead of the individuals or their militias doesn't stop any individual from maintaining the right to do so, regardless of laws declaring otherwise.

Some states have a statute of "duty to retreat"
ie: if you can run away, you must do so rather than fight.

...and if you can't? Then your right to self-defense still appends. Also most of those States apply this rule to incidents occurring outside the home.

Show me where is says you have an INHERENT right to self defense.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Declaration of Independence

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Second Amendment.

You're welcome. :coffeepap:

 

[Rich2018]

Says ME...

Your opinion is worthless when stating a matter of fact.

When you state something as fact, you'd better be able to back it up.

...and is "SELF-ENFORCEABLE" by my own will and the desire to preserve my existence and other liberties from all comers individual, foreign and domestic...

Yaaaawwn

...societies are built on the idea of cooperating in securing group members from others who might do them harm. Family groups did so against other family groups, intermarriage created tribes who defended against other tribal groups, and so on....

You mean like the UK with its strict gun control laws ?

...Declaration of Independence...

Do you really want to go there ?

The USA which allowed slaves, denied suffrage to women, Native Americans...

All men were created equal...until George Washington put chains around their necks.

Don't be so pious.

...Second Amendment....

In order to ensure a well regulated militia...not in order so that you can walk into any bank and execute 5 random strangers.

 

[lwf]

The right to have a gun is man made - there's NOTHING inherent about it.

Yes, every supporter of gun control will acknowledge that the millions of law abiding gun owners will be forced to part with their prized possessions through no fault of their own.

People don't need guns.
Taking them away is unfortunate but the goal is to prevent mass shootings and the thousands and thousands of gun homicides a year.

Next to that, the enjoyment of guns owners shooting their guns is a small price to pay.

How do you square this with an argument to ban drinkable alcohol?

No one needs to drink alcohol. Alcohol kills thousands more people than guns do. The enjoyment people get from drinking alcohol is a small price to pay to save American lives, yes?