Political Crossfire Forums

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3093 Location: London

If a cultire decided that it's citizens had a human right .. an inalienable right that could not be taken away. A right that was laid down in writnig 200 years ago, the culture should be allowed to practice that right yea?

Now, what would happen if that invented 'right' was leading to the deaths of 7000 innocent people a year? Still as confident? 7000 innocents a year not that bad?

Let us use an example. Let us say a government declared it was a human right that it's population should not have to live alongside Jews. And passed some laws to protect their 'fundermental human right' that resulted in 7000 Jews being killed each year, every year. Laws like 'If a jew encroached upon a non-Jew neighbourhood he could legally be shot, no questions asked'.

Now, people felt very strongly about this human right. They liked it. They thought it was cool and made them feel manly. They saw it as their right to protect their neighbourhoods from these Jews. Other countries looked in, saw what was happening, and thought 'well, let's just let it carry on'.

So another 7000 people died the next year, then the next, then ad-nauseum until people were actually used to it happening. Every year it was just taken as read -- 7000 extra corpses. 7000 extra Jews dead. No problem yea?

People liked not living near Jews, and didn't mind the 'side-effect' of a few thousand being 'disappeared' each year. In fact it was a 'right' they would defend to the death.

BUt the entire rest of the civilised world would say it was absolutely crazy, horrible, indefensible -- and stuff what rights they thought they deserved because some fool wrote in 200 years ago 'to defend the country from the Jews' -- 7000 people a year were dying. This had to change.

Would you suggest that the country with the invented 'right' made plans to withdraw it as it was clearly costing 7000 deaths a year for the sake of people's misinformed 'life would go to sh*t if we didn't have it' paranoia -- and live with the consequences. Or would you go down the '7000 people die a year, but they were mostly/all Jews so who cares' route?

The bottom line .. we outside of the US look in the the US gun control policy and just think 'how horrible.' It's our responsibility to try and save those 7000 US citizens a year even if the pro-gun lot don't care remotely about them (let's face it, even if their own daughter was mowed down by some guy having bought a gun expressly for the purpose, they'd argue 'I wish she was carrying more guns that'd have stopped it'!!!.

Yes like we should have tried to save the Jews in Germany. Same principle. People, this is 70,000 of your fellow human beings every 10 years. Don't you care at all? If it was your wife next killed by a legally owned gun, would you care enough to realise without legally owned guns she wouldn't have been shot? Or go out and buy three more assault rifles? You're governments (and your) policies are killing 7000 people a year.. We already know the pro-gun lot don't care. But some people in the US do. Living away frm the US I propose it is still our responsibility to try and save the next 7000 people due to die. Despite, similar to Germany during the second world war, there are thousands of people who don't care or will actively encourage or take part in the killings...

Ragnar Danneskjold · Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 2628 Location: Mulligan's Valley

ikari · Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 6947 Location: Colorado

Oh why won't anyone think of the children!!!!

The right to bear arms is not an invented right. I own this body of mine, thus I may protect it when life or liberty is threatened. I can own property, and thus I may protect that when it too is threatened.

There are a great many things in this world which kill people, many things which do a much better job than guns. That doesn't mean we should live in fear, or run away. Cars kill, diseases kill, water kills, heck even gravity can get you. Yet we wouldn't take away cars or pools and what have you. If we are not going to go after luxuries, why would we turn against natural and innate rights?

micfranklin · Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:33 am Post subject:

:sigh1: britboy, prepared to have your opinions slaughtered again....

britboy wrote: It's our responsibility to try and save those 7000 US citizens a year even if the pro-gun lot don't care remotely about them (let's face it, even if their own daughter was mowed down by some guy having bought a gun expressly for the purpose, they'd argue 'I wish she was carrying more guns that'd have stopped it'!!!.

First off, why do you assume that the pro-gunners don't care about any of those 7000 citizens? Hell, we care about them and that's why we gave them the right to own guns, so they could waste any dangerous criminal.

britboy wrote: If it was your wife next killed by a legally owned gun, would you care enough to realise without legally owned guns she wouldn't have been shot?

And you're telling me she couldn't have been shot by someone else with a gun? Or poisoned from a gas leak? Or stabbed with a knife? Or killed in a house fire?

britboy wrote: We already know the pro-gun lot don't care.

Again, why do you insist that we, the pro-gunners don't care. We do care, that's why we give them the right to get weapons and protect themselves. It's you anti-gun people who don't care.

britboy wrote: But some people in the US do.

They are called pro-gunners.

wyldejackyl · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 7135 Location: Chicago, IL

AGAIN - comparing apples to oranges. Having the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn't entail who you can and cannot kill for approaching you or wanting to live next to you, defined by race or religion.

You are saying that this "right" which our forefathers supposedly 'made up' isn't valid, and that's where you're wrong. A right is something every human has, and the framers were acting to protect those rights for the citizens of this fledgling country. I see what you're trying to do, and again, it will flop harder than a fat chick from a second story window.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 14747 Location: Florida

britboy wrote: If a cultire decided that it's citizens had a human right .. an inalienable right that could not be taken away. A right that was laid down in writnig 200 years ago, the culture should be allowed to practice that right yea?

Now, what would happen if that invented 'right' was leading to the deaths of 7000 innocent people a year? Still as confident? 7000 innocents a year not that bad?

Well, I doubt that all 7000 gun murder victims are "innocent" people. When a gangbanger kills another gangbanger with a gun, that is part of the 7000. From what I've read, at least 40% of murder "victims" are involved in a crime themselves.

Actually, the foundation of the Right to bear arms is in English Common Law from around 1181, and the English Bill of RIghts (1689).

English Bill of Rights "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"

britboy wrote: Let us use an example. Let us say a government declared it was a human right that it's population should not have to live alongside Jews. And passed some laws to protect their 'fundermental human right' that resulted in 7000 Jews being killed each year, every year. Laws like 'If a jew encroached upon a non-Jew neighbourhood he could legally be shot, no questions asked'.

How can a human right exclude other humans? A ridiculous example, as are too many of yours lately.

britboy wrote: Now, people felt very strongly about this human right. They liked it. They thought it was cool and made them feel manly. They saw it as their right to protect their neighbourhoods from these Jews. Other countries looked in, saw what was happening, and thought 'well, let's just let it carry on'.

So another 7000 people died the next year, then the next, then ad-nauseum until people were actually used to it happening. Every year it was just taken as read -- 7000 extra corpses. 7000 extra Jews dead. No problem yea?

People liked not living near Jews, and didn't mind the 'side-effect' of a few thousand being 'disappeared' each year. In fact it was a 'right' they would defend to the death.

BUt the entire rest of the civilised world would say it was absolutely crazy, horrible, indefensible -- and stuff what rights they thought they deserved because some fool wrote in 200 years ago 'to defend the country from the Jews' -- 7000 people a year were dying. This had to change.

Would you suggest that the country with the invented 'right' made plans to withdraw it as it was clearly costing 7000 deaths a year for the sake of people's misinformed 'life would go to sh*t if we didn't have it' paranoia -- and live with the consequences. Or would you go down the '7000 people die a year, but they were mostly/all Jews so who cares' route?

The bottom line .. we outside of the US look in the the US gun control policy and just think 'how horrible.' It's our responsibility to try and save those 7000 US citizens a year even if the pro-gun lot don't care remotely about them (let's face it, even if their own daughter was mowed down by some guy having bought a gun expressly for the purpose, they'd argue 'I wish she was carrying more guns that'd have stopped it'!!!.

1) I don't believe that the American murder rate would be changed much without guns. I believe most murders now committed would still be committed.

2) I really don't give a damn what Europe thinks. There is a reason we broke off from England.....

britboy wrote: Yes like we should have tried to save the Jews in Germany. Same principle. People, this is 70,000 of your fellow human beings every 10 years. Don't you care at all? If it was your wife next killed by a legally owned gun, would you care enough to realise without legally owned guns she wouldn't have been shot? Or go out and buy three more assault rifles? You're governments (and your) policies are killing 7000 people a year.. We already know the pro-gun lot don't care. But some people in the US do. Living away frm the US I propose it is still our responsibility to try and save the next 7000 people due to die. Despite, similar to Germany during the second world war, there are thousands of people who don't care or will actively encourage or take part in the killings...

Absurd example. I don't know why I wasted my time responding.....

airo · Joined: 31 Jul 2004 Posts: 2583 Location: Tampa, Florida

Britboy, are you pro-choice, or pro-life?

I'm just curious, because you're applying logic that's identical to that of pro-lifers to your views on enforcing gun control on those that wish to be just left alone.

It would be pretty humerous if you didn't see their point of you, but you expect us to see yours.

mathurin · Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:46 pm Post subject:

for the 7000 people who die i see about 7000 people who are responsible for their death

end of story

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:35 pm Post subject:

Your comparing gun ownership to the holocaust.

As an ethicst, honeslty i don't know where to start a critical analysis. Its just too far gone.

For one, the holocaust was commited directly by the state.

Secondly, not all deaths by guns are murder.

A single murder cannot be compared to mass state controled genocide.

Really retarded man, really really really retarded.

Boneman · Joined: 24 Feb 2006 Posts: 511

Britboy, if you think anyone really gives a s**t about gun-deaths in america, you really are mistaken. Its like saying people genuinley care about famines in Africa, or car-bombings in Iraq. People pretend to care for a few minutes over the news but then they just forget about it. Unless things are happening in their back yard or on a massive scale they don't actually care about the people involved (im not talking for everyone, but for the majority). So no, we are unlikley ever to do anything that interferes with the US right to bear arms, simply because the majority of the european population, baring the champaign socialists, could not give a flying f**k.

wyldejackyl · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 7135 Location: Chicago, IL

Automobile deaths far eclipse those of gun deaths in america..yet they hand those licenses out to every idiot that comes into this country..legal or ILLEGAL. Yet I can't carry a piece of metal in my pocket. It might be "too dangerous" to myself and everyone around me. LOL! What do they think a 3000lb car is?!

micfranklin · Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:32 am Post subject:

wyldejackyl wrote: Automobile deaths far eclipse those of gun deaths in america..yet they hand those licenses out to every idiot that comes into this country..legal or ILLEGAL. Yet I can't carry a piece of metal in my pocket. It might be "too dangerous" to myself and everyone around me. LOL! What do they think a 3000lb car is?!

Or a gas tanker driving down the road at 70 mph, which has to weigh at least twice as much as any car and more explosive, too.

wyldejackyl · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 7135 Location: Chicago, IL

Exactly. You'd think if our government was really serious about preventing death of innocent people, they'd regulate driving licensing since it causes MORE death than firearms. Heart disease/cancer probably causes more death too than firearms do. Maybe we should promote healthy eating?
Instead, our government blames inanimate objects and totally forgets about the motives of the people using them. Change those motives, prevent the crime. The tools will always be there, whether they are legal or illegal - and not just guns either.

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3093 Location: London

micfranklin wrote: wyldejackyl wrote: Automobile deaths far eclipse those of gun deaths in america..yet they hand those licenses out to every idiot that comes into this country..legal or ILLEGAL. Yet I can't carry a piece of metal in my pocket. It might be "too dangerous" to myself and everyone around me. LOL! What do they think a 3000lb car is?!

Or a gas tanker driving down the road at 70 mph, which has to weigh at least twice as much as any car and more explosive, too.

I guess you're right. electric shocks must kill THOUSANDS of people a year. Yet they won't let me carry around a 'completely airtight container' with a biological disease in it such as Anthrax.

LOL!

Completely insane. Why can't I carry around my biological warfare kit? It's hardly going to magically split open and poison people. If they ban that, surely the should also ban electricity right?

:roll:

Logic.

micfranklin · Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:42 am Post subject:

britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: wyldejackyl wrote: Automobile deaths far eclipse those of gun deaths in america..yet they hand those licenses out to every idiot that comes into this country..legal or ILLEGAL. Yet I can't carry a piece of metal in my pocket. It might be "too dangerous" to myself and everyone around me. LOL! What do they think a 3000lb car is?!

Or a gas tanker driving down the road at 70 mph, which has to weigh at least twice as much as any car and more explosive, too.

I guess you're right. electric shocks must kill THOUSANDS of people a year. Yet they won't let me carry around a 'completely airtight container' with a biological disease in it such as Anthrax.

LOL!

Completely insane. Why can't I carry around my biological warfare kit? It's hardly going to magically split open and poison people. If they ban that, surely the should also ban electricity right?

:roll:

Logic.

Because for one, britboy, biological warfare (note the word 'war') is used mostly for the intent of killing large groups of people, not for self-defense. And also, the chemical could seap throw the container and be released anyway, so think about that. And I assume you're referring to tasers, since you mentioned electric shocks, which don't kill thousands a year. So banning electricity would be depriving the world of a means of power.

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3093 Location: London

micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: wyldejackyl wrote: Automobile deaths far eclipse those of gun deaths in america..yet they hand those licenses out to every idiot that comes into this country..legal or ILLEGAL. Yet I can't carry a piece of metal in my pocket. It might be "too dangerous" to myself and everyone around me. LOL! What do they think a 3000lb car is?!

Or a gas tanker driving down the road at 70 mph, which has to weigh at least twice as much as any car and more explosive, too.

I guess you're right. electric shocks must kill THOUSANDS of people a year. Yet they won't let me carry around a 'completely airtight container' with a biological disease in it such as Anthrax.

LOL!

Completely insane. Why can't I carry around my biological warfare kit? It's hardly going to magically split open and poison people. If they ban that, surely the should also ban electricity right?

:roll:

Logic.

Because for one, britboy, biological warfare (note the word 'war') is used mostly for the intent of killing large groups of people, not for self-defense. And also, the chemical could seap throw the container and be released anyway, so think about that. And I assume you're referring to tasers, since you mentioned electric shocks, which don't kill thousands a year. So banning electricity would be depriving the world of a means of power.

No it couldn't seap through a glass container.

And hold on -- my container is just an inanimate object and you want it banned? LOL! I hate to say this but people kill people, if I didn't use the glass container to kill 500 people, I'd just use my shoelaces to strangle them one at a time anyway - surely you must at least agree with that.

LOL! What are you going to do ban shoelaces as well? LOL

You may be up for banning inanimate objects -- but I think a few people would disagree with you. I want the container to use as an ornament and carry around with me. You want to restrict my human rights by banning it.

I hate to break it to you but inanimate objects do not kill people 'by magic'.

I seem to remember in your constitution some mention of the right to own property. Yet I can not own my vial of biological disease? Talk about a contradiction!

LOL so what do we do? Ban shoelaces? Ban cups of water? Remember you can kill just as many people with a cup of water as you can with a vial of biological agent. LOL I think you need a rethink.

micfranklin · Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:25 pm Post subject:

As usual, there are so many things wrong with your arguments, so allow me to break it down for ya:

britboy wrote: No it couldn't seap through a glass container.

And hold on -- my container is just an inanimate object and you want it banned? LOL! I hate to say this but people kill people, if I didn't use the glass container to kill 500 people, I'd just use my shoelaces to strangle them one at a time anyway - surely you must at least agree with that.

Yes, it could seap through it: ever heard of acids? The container may be inanimate, but it contains a toxic gas that can and will kill people if released, especially if you open it. And do you really think you wouldn't get beaten down if you tried to strangle someone with a shoelace?

britboy wrote: You may be up for banning inanimate objects -- but I think a few people would disagree with you. I want the container to use as an ornament and carry around with me. You want to restrict my human rights by banning it.

Most of the ornaments that people own do not contain toxic chemical agents like mustard gas.

britboy wrote: LOL so what do we do? Ban shoelaces? Ban cups of water? Remember you can kill just as many people with a cup of water as you can with a vial of biological agent. LOL I think you need a rethink.

Except using a biological agent is much more lethal and can kill in seconds, as opposed to a cup of water which would take a little bit more time. Besides, banning shoelaces would make some brands of shoe absolutely useless.

You need to rethink everything you've said.

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3093 Location: London

Well yes you're right I am confused by what you're saying here .. let's go through it ...

micfranklin wrote: As usual, there are so many things wrong with your arguments, so allow me to break it down for ya:

britboy wrote: No it couldn't seap through a glass container.

And hold on -- my container is just an inanimate object and you want it banned? LOL! I hate to say this but people kill people, if I didn't use the glass container to kill 500 people, I'd just use my shoelaces to strangle them one at a time anyway - surely you must at least agree with that.

Yes, it could seap through it: ever heard of acids? The container may be inanimate, but it contains a toxic gas that can and will kill people if released, especially if you open it. And do you really think you wouldn't get beaten down if you tried to strangle someone with a shoelace?

Well My container is full of mustard gas. That can't get through glass so it is completely, utterly harmless. The container of mustard gas won't kill anyone -- the person using it might. Why blame the mustard gas? As for the rest, I think I understand what you're saying .. if there is a lethal object that someone wants to carry around, and that law abiding person could at any time kill many people with it (in my example by 'opening it'), the law abiding person should not be legally allowed to carry it around. You know what -- actually I think I completely agree with you! In fact now you say it, it appears blimin' obvious.

Actually come to think about it I also agree with you about the shoelace. LOL there are people on this board that believe you can kill people just as easily with lots of objects, as you can with objects specifically designed for killing! They think if criminals only had access to less lethal items they'd still kill using things like shoelaces! I agree -- it's a silly argument by them! Using your words exactly .. yes indeed you would get 'beaten down'. Wow, an ally at last!

Quote: You may be up for banning inanimate objects -- but I think a few people would disagree with you. I want the container to use as an ornament and carry around with me. You want to restrict my human rights by banning it.

Most of the ornaments that people own do not contain toxic chemical agents like mustard gas.

Yes thats true -- virtually every thing people carry round do not have the capability of killing many people in fact its only things like my 'ornament' and a few other items that do. So, well, I understand .. you do think it's worth restricting any so called 'human rights' if I want to abuse them in carrying round something (my ornament) that could, if I chose, be absolutely bloody lethal. Something that could kill many, many people.

Quote: LOL so what do we do? Ban shoelaces? Ban cups of water? Remember you can kill just as many people with a cup of water as you can with a vial of biological agent. LOL I think you need a rethink

Except using a biological agent is much more lethal and can kill in seconds, as opposed to a cup of water which would take a little bit more time. Besides, banning shoelaces would make some brands of shoe absolutely useless.

You need to rethink everything you've said.

I am starting to rethink the things I have said actually -- you see I guess what you're saying is that it's only worth banning things that have virtually no purpose except to kill and mame. Banning shoe-laces, like banning cars, would be absolutely stupid. No I agree with you, the item I want to carry around that - apart from the 'marginal' semi-use of being a nice ornament, seems only useful for killing people. Yes, these items should be banned. Any countries that let people carry around objects with the primary use, in fact designed specifically for killing -- really have their ideas screwed up. Yep -- my ornament should be banned alright as it (amongst other more common items) fall clearly into that category.

I have rethought -- and you know what -- we're batting for the same side here! Thanks, I know and wholly agree with where you're coming from.

:-D

micfranklin · Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:08 pm Post subject:

britboy wrote: Yep -- my ornament should be banned alright as it (amongst other more common items) fall clearly into that category

Uh, hold on a minute...I never said your ornament or any common item should be banned. I said that "most ornaments people own don't contain lethal gases."

Unless the ornament you're thinking of is mustard gas or some other lethal agent :?

TNBiologist · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Tennessee

Britboy - Where is the 2nd Amendment does it exclude any group (race, religion, ethnic) from owning firearms? It doesn't. It is a right of all people no matter what "group" they belong to. Your example of a "right" is anti-semitic. Nowhere in the Constitution does it limit the rights of a group, that is what makes it great. Everyone, no matter what race, religion or ethnicity, is treated the. The jew and the black living next to each other can both own firearms.

The right to defend oneself is not a made up right. Let me ask you this and try to answer honestly: If you are walking into your house and someone comes up behind you and pulls a knife on you, would you try to defend yourself in someway (lock the personout of your house if you can in, hit them and run, anything)? If you would then you have just used the basic right of self defence. Allowing a populus to be armed only strengthens such a right (not to mention keeping the government in check).