"My kids [sic] safety trumps your gun rights"

Maverick9 · May 3, 2014

trumps

They misspelled 'depends on'...

marshaul · May 3, 2014

OC for ME said:
We have a right to life, liberty, and property. Health care is not property. Health insurance is not property. A minimum wage is not property. The remunerations received from our labors in service to another is our property. We do not have a right to purchase a house, car, or any other "good", but once purchased it is our property.

Well... We have the right of free association, by which is implied a right to enter into contracts. A right to enter into contracts certainly implies a right to be free to purchase services and goods.

Obviously that negative right doesn't imply a positive "right" to force somebody to provide you with those goods and services.

Aknazer · May 3, 2014

OC for ME said:
Obviously.....well, maybe not obvious to some, our gun rights take a back seat to the rights of a property owner.

Our gun rights don't take a back seat, it's that our rights end where someone else's begin.

davidmcbeth · May 3, 2014

Or "my kids safety trumps your kids safety"

sudden valley gunner · May 4, 2014

Don't most children die at home?

EMNofSeattle · May 4, 2014

marshaul said:
"My kids safety trumps your right to own a car."

"My kids safety trumps your right to build a swimming pool."

"My kids safety trumps your right to use buckets/plastic bags/powerful magnets/knives/baseball bats/fists/arms/etc"

"My kids safety trumps your right to live."

If it's for the children it's not to be questioned.....

OC for ME · May 4, 2014

marshaul said:
Well... We have the right of free association, by which is implied a right to enter into contracts. A right to enter into contracts certainly implies a right to be free to purchase services and goods.

Obviously that negative right doesn't imply a positive "right" to force somebody to provide you with those goods and services.

We have a right to associate, freely, with those who would reciprocate, freely. We have a right to request to enter into a contract with another, we do not have a right to force a contractual obligation upon another.

You may only purchase that which is offered to you in exchange for money, or goods, or services. Remember, it is not our property.....yet.

marshaul · May 4, 2014

OC for ME said:
We have a right to associate, freely, with those who would reciprocate, freely. We have a right to request to enter into a contract with another, we do not have a right to force a contractual obligation upon another.

You may only purchase that which is offered to you in exchange for money, or goods, or services. Remember, it is not our property.....yet.

Pretty sure I said that.

carolina guy · May 4, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
If it's for the children it's not to be questioned.....

(*chuckle*) +1 (for the sarcasm implied)

OC for ME · May 5, 2014

marshaul said:
Pretty sure I said that.

Yes you did, without the rejecting part, that is.

papa bear · May 5, 2014

JTHunter said:
PapaBear - the examples may not be enumerated rights but they are covered in The Declaration. To wit:

We have the right to strive for the house, the pool, etc., but that doesn't mean we can or will achieve them. But nobody, and I do mean NOBODY has the right to deny us our aspirations.

If they are concerned for their child's safety they can keep them at home!!

good try. but "the pursuit of happiness" is not necessarily a right , but i could argue that the purchase of a house or pool will make you miserable. the "declaration of independence" has only been argued for intent. i really don't care either way.

take the argument that not all rights are enumerated. that same person that says their children's right to saftey trumps your right to a pool. their argument is just as valued as yours. it is a one on one argument.
also if you go by majority rules. then you are suggesting we are a Democracy. worst form of government there is

BTW, just another thought if you want them to "stay home" you are denying their right to travel

papa bear · May 5, 2014

OC for ME said:
We have a right to associate, freely, with those who would reciprocate, freely. We have a right to request to enter into a contract with another, we do not have a right to force a contractual obligation upon another.

You may only purchase that which is offered to you in exchange for money, or goods, or services. Remember, it is not our property.....yet.

Actually. the supreme court has just ruled that you could be penalized, for not buying something,by the tax code. in other words if you don't buy what the government tells you to, you could be subject to a "Tax Fine".
wonder if they will make us buy a Volt?

marshaul · May 5, 2014

papa bear said:
take the argument that not all rights are enumerated. that same person that says their children's right to saftey trumps your right to a pool. their argument is just as valued as yours. it is a one on one argument.

Nonsense.

First of all, the "right to safety" in ambiguous. If by "safety" it is meant "not having people create threats to my physical or financial well-being which are independent of any action taken on my part", then sure, this right exists. After all, each and every person on earth can enjoy this freedom equally, and so it must be out right.

If, on the other hand, "safety" means "living in a world without things which can hurt me (or with which I can hurt myself)", then no, there is no such "right". This would require living in a world with no other humans (forget their tools), and clearly we cannot all possess this ability equally, therefore it cannot be any man's "right".

Secondly, the concept of right is a coherent formulation founded on a philosophical tradition which predates our Constitution. While this concept has been described in numerous different ways, and there is indeed disagreement on the precise application in certain cases, nobody asserts that right is a simple "he said/she said" affair. Right is determined by the logical application of principle, not by a shouting match. And, incidentally, rights do not overlap, so if two parties claim seemingly competing or contradictory rights, one of them is wrong.

stealthyeliminator · May 5, 2014

papa bear said:
BTW, just another thought if you want them to "stay home" you are denying their right to travel

Actually not. If you suggest that they stay in their home if they're so afraid of the world that they wish to preemptively use force against others who have used no force against them, you are not denying them anything and are probably giving them fairly sound advise. If you demand that they stay in their home upon threat of looking down the barrel of a rifle and being subdued and detained, as the police forces did following the Boston Marathon incident, then you would be denying them their right to travel.

rmansu2 · May 5, 2014

PistolPackingMomma said:
+1.

I explained it was for self defense, and the mom candidly bleated, "oh, I think I would just wait for the police."

...umm, lady? You were on a trail that goes for at least two miles from help, in a park that is at least 10 if not 15 minutes from police response. WTF did she think was going to protect her and her kids while she waited 12-20 minutes for cops to arrive AND locate her?

:banghead:

Had a similar experience in a Walmart. Lady asked why I was carrying a gun while my 2yr old was in the buggy I was pushing. I just pointed at my daughter and said, "Because her safety is my responsibility."

Nice enough exchange. Had the conversation about the deputy parked out front and the amount of time it would take for someone to process that there was a problem, make the call and explain it, then wait for the deputy to come in. If he came in at all or waited for backup. I think she walked away enlightened.

sudden valley gunner · May 5, 2014

papa bear said:
Actually. the supreme court has just ruled that you could be penalized, for not buying something,by the tax code. in other words if you don't buy what the government tells you to, you could be subject to a "Tax Fine".
wonder if they will make us buy a Volt?

The supreme court has lots of nonsense rulings. Your idea of rights coming from government documents is silly.

SCOTUS rulings are the ultimate "appeal to authority" fallacy being that the authority they appeal to is their own.

Elm Creek Smith · May 8, 2014

I've only had one run-in with an anti-gunner who confronted me while I was open carrying. I was rolling a cart of groceries to the truck when a woman stopped right in front of me and demanded to know, "Why are you carrying a gun?"

"I'm not carrying a gun," I protested calmly.

Incensed, the woman pointed at the little J-frame S&W I was wearing crossdraw at 10:30. "You are so carrying a gun!" she said loudly.

I shook my head and turned my hips to the left, revealing the S&W K-frame behind my right hip. "No, ma'am," I said calmly. "I'm carrying two guns."

While she was spluttering, I went around her, loaded up my truck, and departed. Haven't seen her since.

mikeyb · May 12, 2014

papa bear said:
but you do not have the right to a car or a pool, or even a house. if you did it would be up to the government to give you one, even if you didn't want it. something like having to buy insurance

i could point out in you scenario, that you getting a car may take away someone else's car from them. also if it were a right you would get it for free (which i have always thought we should be issued a free gun)

You have a right to whatever fulfills the hierarchy of needs. The free market is supposed to be free from gov't intrusion. So yes, a right is free, but don't assume the ability to purchase something isn't a right.

papa bear said:
but by all means you still have to have the rights enumerated, or say ruled on. if you didn't people could demand all kinds of rights. like demanding we have health care or a minimum wage of course that is one thing we have had a good record on in this nation. anything that is man made, is left to the markets, and anything that the creator makes is what we have rights for

People demand all kinds of rights as it is.

papa bear said:
good try. but "the pursuit of happiness" is not necessarily a right , but i could argue that the purchase of a house or pool will make you miserable. the "declaration of independence" has only been argued for intent. i really don't care either way.

take the argument that not all rights are enumerated. that same person that says their children's right to saftey trumps your right to a pool. their argument is just as valued as yours. it is a one on one argument. also if you go by majority rules. then you are suggesting we are a Democracy. worst form of government there is

BTW, just another thought if you want them to "stay home" you are denying their right to travel

Your argument doesn't hold water (pun intended). Your pool is on your private property. Other's rights do not trump your rights on your property (despite what insurance tells you).

papa bear said:
Actually. the supreme court has just ruled that you could be penalized, for not buying something,by the tax code. in other words if you don't buy what the government tells you to, you could be subject to a "Tax Fine".
wonder if they will make us buy a Volt?

Cite?

mikeyb · May 12, 2014

marshaul said:
Nonsense.

First of all, the "right to safety" in ambiguous. If by "safety" it is meant "not having people create threats to my physical or financial well-being which are independent of any action taken on my part", then sure, this right exists. After all, each and every person on earth can enjoy this freedom equally, and so it must be out right.

If, on the other hand, "safety" means "living in a world without things which can hurt me (or with which I can hurt myself)", then no, there is no such "right". This would require living in a world with no other humans (forget their tools), and clearly we cannot all possess this ability equally, therefore it cannot be any man's "right".

Secondly, the concept of right is a coherent formulation founded on a philosophical tradition which predates our Constitution. While this concept has been described in numerous different ways, and there is indeed disagreement on the precise application in certain cases, nobody asserts that right is a simple "he said/she said" affair. Right is determined by the logical application of principle, not by a shouting match. And, incidentally, rights do not overlap, so if two parties claim seemingly competing or contradictory rights, one of them is wrong.

Exactly. If a mom of 3 or more children comes up to me and say something to that effect, I'll say then I have the right to not have you on the road. Driving around with a bunch of children in the back is incredibly distracting, and you become a danger on the road. I have seen many a minivan swerve, speed, slow, and cut-off people on the freeway. And how many do you see pulled over? Nearly none. I asked my officer friend why that is and he didn't have an answer. Probably because he'd be pulling over a distressed soccer mom and a ticket would just be a nice feather in the cap for the day (sarcasm).

There's no blanket of safety. Never has been. It's a farce and a lie to assume that the gov't would be able to keep its citizens safe. It can try, but it doesn't and cannot happen.

papa bear · May 13, 2014

mikeyb said:
You have a right to whatever fulfills the hierarchy of needs. The free market is supposed to be free from gov't intrusion. So yes, a right is free, but don't assume the ability to purchase something isn't a right.

People demand all kinds of rights as it is.

Your argument doesn't hold water (pun intended). Your pool is on your private property. Other's rights do not trump your rights on your property (despite what insurance tells you).

Cite?

just remember you do not have any property rights. it is all subject to laws

CITE; one of many, you might have to follow some of the links. but the jest is, the supreme court has ruled anything can be a tax "penalty". so basically what they said is if the Government tells you to buy a Volt, or there will be a 1000 dollar tax penalty, that is constitutional.

http://anewscafe.com/2012/06/28/vic...ourt-rules-in-favor-of-affordable-health-act/

"My kids [sic] safety trumps your gun rights"

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member