Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Huffington Post.... LOL.... wow

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Huffington Post.... LOL.... wow

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin...html?#comments
    “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”



    The Second Amendment is highly contested. There is no doubt that people do have the right to carry and have a stockpile of guns (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) and a state has the right to organize a well-regulated Militia. But, the main issue is on the right to self-defend with a firearm.

    The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights. In addition, one’s mental capacity is a major factor in deciding whether a man or woman has the right to have a firearm. There are two reasons for ensuring mental capacity. First, one of the Five Aims is to ensure domestic tranquility and there can be no tranquility if one does not have the capacity. Second, if one’s brain is distorting his or her reality, they do not have the proper reasoning and deduction skills to use a firearm.

    Therefore, if we ponder and meditate on the recent events in news about guns, it would be obvious that the current state is incorrect. A gun for civilians is a weapon for a revolution and not for ordinary use. The belief that a gun is a useful tool to protect one is counterintuitive because guns get into the hands of people who use them for horrible reasons. In addition, there are reasons why cops are trained to use a firearm in stressful situations. It is not to keep their mind at ease or anything of that sort, but to be able to fire accurately at the target in the correct location. It is immensely difficult to fire when under pressure. Moreover, one may argue this is an analogous argument and yes it is because the United States government is lobbied to not study or fund research that observes the effects of guns. This cripples the chance of evaluating a proper policy to deal with gun violence. But, there was one study by ABC, which observed using guns in a classroom. All the participations poorly performed at the mock situation.

    Once again, if there is an argument in the reasoning of this amendment and others, one must filter it through the Five Aims of the USA and the Bill of Rights. This is to ensure that any argument can be answered, avoiding a political divide.


    #2
    Here's a radical thought. You commit a crime and you give up all your rights. #1 being the right to be shot in the face three times by a 500 S&W.

    "The door you just kicked in was locked for your protection!"
    Pat ------> NRA Endowment Member

    Comment


      #3
      So a person should lay down like a beaten dog and not protect themselves.........it makes perfect sense.

      Comment


        #4
        It really is a mental disorder. Fact is these communist elite mongrols have never had to deal with real violence while they sit in their ivory towers.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by mossy930spx View Post
          It really is a mental disorder. Fact is these communist elite mongrols have never had to deal with real violence while they sit in their ivory towers.
          If we can avoid a name calling maybe we wont be called names. Law mostly on the side of weak and incapable. Law is imperfect but need to be exist and interprid. I agree with the concept that one who broke the law lesser there rights. Yes, if you broke in to someone house, you might meet Mr. .45 in your face. Saying that it is thin line between defending your life from big angry professional bulglar or 15 years old junky girl. Not sure about you but I would feel regret if I killed a teen girl.

          2A should be protected. Nothing more to say about it. Having a firearm is a huge responsibility, I'm for education and training, I'm more afraid of dumb people with guns then criminals with guns.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Russian View Post

            If we can avoid a name calling maybe we wont be called names. Law mostly on the side of weak and incapable. Law is imperfect but need to be exist and interprid. I agree with the concept that one who broke the law lesser there rights. Yes, if you broke in to someone house, you might meet Mr. .45 in your face. Saying that it is thin line between defending your life from big angry professional bulglar or 15 years old junky girl. Not sure about you but I would feel regret if I killed a teen girl.

            2A should be protected. Nothing more to say about it. Having a firearm is a huge responsibility, I'm for education and training, I'm more afraid of dumb people with guns then criminals with guns.
            1) The other side has always called us names regardless of if we take the high ground. So that notion is irrelevant.

            2) The author has taken a position that the aggressor has more inherent rights not to be shot while putting your life in danger than you do being a victim. Dancing around between a burly man vs a 15 yr old junky girl is tap dancing on the red herring argument. I would regret taking any life but if said 15 yr old junky girl was armed entering my home?

            Comment


              #7
              something like this:

              http://www.ksat.com/news/1-teen-kill...-home-invasion

              Comment


                #8
                Sorry, I was not trying to pick on individual cases but point out that having a firearm gives not only the right but a responsibility. Also, just because is doing something wrong (name calling) does not entitle to everyone else be the same. When I'm talking to anti2A people, I'm always trying to be very calm, polite and overall nice. Trying to ruin the stereotype one conversation per time.

                Comment


                  #9
                  There's inherent responsibilities in all things we do, especially things that can potentially have life threatening injuries. When I discuss firearms with anti's it's usually cordial. But when idiotic terms are thrown around and the "nuclear arms" retarded argument is tossed in.... that's when I give them the verbal beat down. Make no mistake in the absence of facts people will play the heart strings or try and demean your views in order to justify their position.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    So in essence I have to accept all that comes my way just so that I don't violate a criminal's rights?
                    The Huffington (only God knows what they are huffing) Compost is taking a page from the Brits.

                    http://www.naturalnews.com/037166_se...criminals.html

                    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-outside.html

                    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-8203046.html

                    And then there is the perpetual asshole Pierce Big M Little Organ:

                    http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/in...be-prosecuted/
                    SHADAP VARMINT!

                    Comment


                      #11
                      " The belief that a gun is a useful tool to protect one is counterintuitive because guns get into the hands of people who use them for horrible reasons."
                      Because guns get into the hands of people who use them for horrible reasons is EXACTLY the reason why a firearm is a useful tool for personal protection. The author's reasoning is guided more by ideology and emotion than by logic and facts. Typical liberal/progressive thinking.
                      GOA * NRA ENDOWMENT MEMBER * APPLESEED RIFLEMAN * NYSRPA * NAGR * JPFO

                      Comment


                        #12
                        The belief that a gun is a useful tool to protect one is counterintuitive because guns get into the hands of people who use them for horrible reasons.

                        It's still just a tool. It does not matter if it is used for good or bad. Just like a hammer is a tool, you can use it to nail a board down or bash someone skull in. It's still just a tool. It all depends on the person using it.
                        III%

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X