sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Nope, read the posts in context.
Plus if you were asking if you should have a nuclear weapon I already gave you my opinion on that, pay attention.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Rights vs Priviledges, how do we convey the difference to people?
- Thread starter Freedom1Man
- Start date
Nope, read the posts in context.
Plus if you were asking if you should have a nuclear weapon I already gave you my opinion on that, pay attention.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Plus Primus you have no right to cry out evasion to anyone when you evade the meat of every post including the one you quoted of mine.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
I feel like I've been disengaged. Is that the case, Primus? Have you disengaged from me, or are you planning on continuing our discussion?
Primus
Regular Member
You stated no one should have nuclear weapons. I asked you a direct question. Why shouldnt I be able to have one? You then responded about YOUR firearms.
That's an evasion.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Primus
Regular Member
I am stealthy. Handling one person/issue at a time. Your not disengaged.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Like I said read the actuall post! Jeez it was said in jest.
You shouldn't have one because you are a statist anti rights nut who thinks people loose their rights when you feel they are less than human , due processed be damned!
Primus
Regular Member
Its security in a different sense. I don't mean security from bad guys I mean safety from negligence.
Nuclear thing..... you believe it shouldn't be regulated (please correct that if I am wrong, I'm asserting that because you stated shouldn't be able to regulate anything).... well if any person can try and build one and screws it up look at the consequences. The consequences far outweigh the benefit so damn near everyone is in agreement it can/should he regulated.
What do you gain by having a a bomb as an individual? Nothing.
What is the POTENTIAL loss to everyone withing a few mike radius? Everything.
So... gain: nothing (other then just because I can) potential loss: everything to a lot of people.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Still find it humorous that you ask an evasive question and then accuse me of being evasive.....
.
.
Primus
Regular Member
Still find it humorous that you ask an evasive question and then accuse me of being evasive.....
So I guess your not going to answer. Figures.
So be it.. at least its on here for the record.
You said you don't believe anyone should have nuclear weapons. Well how dare you tell me what I can or can't have.
The problem is if you explain (as I was asking you to) you know it'll create a conflict.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Oh let me shed a tear for your hypocrisy.
I don't have a habit of evading, I take real subjects head on.
You on the other hand.........
My opinion on "should" doesn't matter, it needs no explanation, I am not asking for any government to regulate you.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Public announcement to all who care to know.
In my opinion The "should" argument is a stupid silly one especially when people are trying to bring about the coercive violent nature of state against a "should".
Especially when people will try to link Nuclear weapons to an argument about the fundamental right of bearing arms.
In my opinion The "should" argument is a stupid silly one especially when people are trying to bring about the coercive violent nature of state against a "should".
Especially when people will try to link Nuclear weapons to an argument about the fundamental right of bearing arms.
Fuller Malarkey
Regular Member
More of pinus's nonsense. The "well, shouldn't we all have nukes then?" is a slimy attempt at a loaded question. Like walking up to someone in a group and confronting the individual with the question "have you stopped beating your wife?"
Further, there's some straw man going on. The topic is regulating our self defense weapons and other liberties, and pinus runs to an extreme with nuke equations, a known threat to all of mankind, whereas the discussion was surrounding self defense weapons. An appeal to extremes.
Primus, as with Squealer the pig in the book "Animal Farm", is hypocrisy embodied.
Further, there's some straw man going on. The topic is regulating our self defense weapons and other liberties, and pinus runs to an extreme with nuke equations, a known threat to all of mankind, whereas the discussion was surrounding self defense weapons. An appeal to extremes.
Primus, as with Squealer the pig in the book "Animal Farm", is hypocrisy embodied.
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
Read this case... Miller v United States, F.2d 486,489
" The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our system of law dictates that there is only one way to remove a Right belonging to the people. That is by a person knowingly or unknowingly waiving a particular Right.
Some of the confusion in our system has arisen because many millions of people have Waived their " right to travel" unrestricted, and opted into the jurisdiction of the State. Those who have knowingly or unknowingly given up these Rights are legally regulated by State law, and must obtain permits, registrations, insurance etc."
My .02
Thank you and best regards.
CCJ
" The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our system of law dictates that there is only one way to remove a Right belonging to the people. That is by a person knowingly or unknowingly waiving a particular Right.
Some of the confusion in our system has arisen because many millions of people have Waived their " right to travel" unrestricted, and opted into the jurisdiction of the State. Those who have knowingly or unknowingly given up these Rights are legally regulated by State law, and must obtain permits, registrations, insurance etc."
My .02
Thank you and best regards.
CCJ
Last edited:
Primus
Regular Member
Public announcement... more evasion.
Its called hypocrisy when you say you shouldn't have weapon A but everyone should have weapon B. Wither its a weapon or its not. And either weapons can be regulated or not. Period.
Same with vehicles. Either you can regulate travel with A (planes, trains, cruise ships, fuel trucks) AND travel mode B (bicycles, foot, car, pick up truck) or you can't.
To say you can regulate A but not B is hypocritical.
Why the nuclear thing? Well because you need to use extremes to get to the point.
We all agree you need NO regulation to regulate walking. But we all agree that you need regulation for commercial sized jets or even airplanes in general. Or even more extreme space ships.
But here's the hard part...... where is the MIDDLE.
That's how ALL of these "can't regulate me" arguments go. The extremes are easy but when you get in the weeds is where it gets ugly.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Primus
Regular Member
To expand on the A B thing...
When a definitive argument is made using things like.... all..... never.... always....none....etc. its easy to defeat.
Try it. No weapons should ever be regulated.
Nukes? Defeated.
No methods of travel can be regulated.
Airliner? (Empty) defeated.
Government can never regulate travel...
Well buses full of kids. Defeated (assuming you agree the person operating said vehicle should have some license)
Government can never regulate weapons.
Well I want to grow ebola virus to use on an attacker. I don't care if they rob my TV I want to kill them with biological weapons. Defeated. (Assuming we all agree ebola in your neighbors fridge is bad.
Now these are extremes to prove the point. These extremes 99% of people with agree with (think Ebola in fridge). IMHO if you think that Ebola in your fridge is ok then you are extreme.
So either you can admit that things CAN/SHOULD be regulated or you can't. The faster you admit that it CAN be regulated the faster you can focus on the specifics.... Ebola yes, a bomb yes, at 4 yes, hand grenades yes, Ar 15s maybe, handguns maybe, hunting rifles hell no, knives no
Its a scale.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
When a definitive argument is made using things like.... all..... never.... always....none....etc. its easy to defeat.
Try it. No weapons should ever be regulated.
Nukes? Defeated.
No methods of travel can be regulated.
Airliner? (Empty) defeated.
Government can never regulate travel...
Well buses full of kids. Defeated (assuming you agree the person operating said vehicle should have some license)
Government can never regulate weapons.
Well I want to grow ebola virus to use on an attacker. I don't care if they rob my TV I want to kill them with biological weapons. Defeated. (Assuming we all agree ebola in your neighbors fridge is bad.
Now these are extremes to prove the point. These extremes 99% of people with agree with (think Ebola in fridge). IMHO if you think that Ebola in your fridge is ok then you are extreme.
So either you can admit that things CAN/SHOULD be regulated or you can't. The faster you admit that it CAN be regulated the faster you can focus on the specifics.... Ebola yes, a bomb yes, at 4 yes, hand grenades yes, Ar 15s maybe, handguns maybe, hunting rifles hell no, knives no
Its a scale.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
You are so full of Shite!
I told you why I think you "shouldn't"....don't you read?
More silly arguments based on fallacous reasoning.
Quit oinking about and address the original argument I made back to you or are you going to porcine your way out of every argument?
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
eye95
Well-known member
I happen to agree on bombs, but that is another discussion (and we have too many going on in one thread already).
You said they should be able to regulate anything. That is where I took exception. They should not be able to regulate, for example, handguns. To do so would be to take an essential Liberty, one that Franklin warned we should not give up.
Franklin did not warn us against giving up nonessential Liberties for long-lasting security. Some here would call him a "statist" for that view.