Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
The Second Amendment
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ArmenianJohn" data-source="post: 75935529" data-attributes="member: 324023"><p>I said "No" in the poll because I don't believe people have some sort of absolute right to bear arms and your example somewhat demonstrates that. I think a cop is right to shoot someone who has a gun if they are "brandishing" it or using it in a threatening manner. For example, a cop shouldn't hit someone just because that person has hands, but if that person uses his hand to make a fist and threaten with it then the cop has a right to defend himself and others by hitting that person. Same with a gun. However, with guns, just the possession of a gun is subject to certain additional rules and laws, specifically because guns are so dangerous (incredibly much more so than hands/fists), so they are naturally going to be more aggressive towards someone who simply possesses a gun in certain situations. Sometimes the cops are in the wrong with this but typically they are right to be overly cautious.</p><p></p><p>But the way the 2A folks pretend the 2A is some kind of absolute right to bear arms is a complete joke, anyway. If they REALLY believed in the 2A in that way there would be more people campaigning for the right to own missiles, bombs, rockets, even atomic and nuclear arms. Obviously, it's not just some open right to "bear arms" - the 2A is clear about it being part of a well-regulated militia. The 2A crowd is really just a bunch of gun lovers who want their toys. And I can understand that - if you're into something you want to have it and play with it and you will support whatever allows you to do that. But their 2A argument is disingenuous as I see it - they know deep down that there is no actual "right to bear arms" but they will twist the 2A to leverage it in support of their passion for guns.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ArmenianJohn, post: 75935529, member: 324023"] I said "No" in the poll because I don't believe people have some sort of absolute right to bear arms and your example somewhat demonstrates that. I think a cop is right to shoot someone who has a gun if they are "brandishing" it or using it in a threatening manner. For example, a cop shouldn't hit someone just because that person has hands, but if that person uses his hand to make a fist and threaten with it then the cop has a right to defend himself and others by hitting that person. Same with a gun. However, with guns, just the possession of a gun is subject to certain additional rules and laws, specifically because guns are so dangerous (incredibly much more so than hands/fists), so they are naturally going to be more aggressive towards someone who simply possesses a gun in certain situations. Sometimes the cops are in the wrong with this but typically they are right to be overly cautious. But the way the 2A folks pretend the 2A is some kind of absolute right to bear arms is a complete joke, anyway. If they REALLY believed in the 2A in that way there would be more people campaigning for the right to own missiles, bombs, rockets, even atomic and nuclear arms. Obviously, it's not just some open right to "bear arms" - the 2A is clear about it being part of a well-regulated militia. The 2A crowd is really just a bunch of gun lovers who want their toys. And I can understand that - if you're into something you want to have it and play with it and you will support whatever allows you to do that. But their 2A argument is disingenuous as I see it - they know deep down that there is no actual "right to bear arms" but they will twist the 2A to leverage it in support of their passion for guns. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
The Second Amendment
Top
Bottom