9
   

GOP should allow guns at convention

 
 
natturner
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2016 11:20 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

How can rights just "come naturally" without bargaining within a society? You know, Jefferson didn't go on in the Declaration after "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to also make a big list of all our rights. You know, the ones that resulted from the negotiations that got us the right to bear arms, vote, be free from search and seizure, express religion freely, be tried with a jury of our peers, be free from cruel and unusual punishment,etc...
I'm not sure how you can disagree that rights are negotiated by societies, unless you figure that people are just born with instinctual rights and then somehow agree on them naturally.
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2016 11:28 am
@natturner,
natturner wrote:

Quote:
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

How can rights just "come naturally" without bargaining within a society? You know, Jefferson didn't go on in the Declaration after "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to also make a big list of all our rights. You know, the ones that resulted from the negotiations that got us the right to bear arms, vote, be free from search and seizure, express religion freely, be tried with a jury of our peers, be free from cruel and unusual punishment,etc...
I'm not sure how you can disagree that rights are negotiated by societies, unless you figure that people are just born with instinctual rights and then somehow agree on them naturally.

The founders felt, and expressed during the founding, the idea that rights are inherent and that they were simply enumerating them. The clearest statement of this is the Declaration. They said, for instance, "we find these truths to be self-evident." They also said that governments which are destructive of these rights should be thrown out.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2016 05:24 pm
@natturner,
natturner wrote:
I'm not sure how you can disagree that rights are negotiated by societies, unless you figure that people are just born with instinctual rights and then somehow agree on them naturally.

I don't know about instinct and agreement, but people are indeed born with inherent rights.

Societies that violate these rights should be destroyed.
natturner
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2016 05:34 pm
@oralloy,
But don't societies have to get together and talk about their rights and agree on them and write them down so that they can be enforced?
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2016 05:51 pm
@natturner,
Yes. But there are some rights that all societies must agree to.

If any society does not agree to these rights, then that society must either be destroyed or be forced to change at gunpoint.
RABEL222
 
  5  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2016 10:09 pm
@oralloy,
Why do you do everything at gun point? I think you have a clinker in your thinker.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2016 11:09 pm
It seems to me that it would be extremely hypocritical (not that that has ever stopped Republicans) for the GOP to restrict anybody from bringing any guns they want to their convention, and carrying them openly, after all their rhetoric for the last few years, and further, pace Robert, for them to hold their convention anywhere that restricts people using that facility from bringing in any guns they want, under any circumstances. is truly hypocritical as well. As far as I know, liquor tends to flow freely at conventions anyway, and liquor lowers inhibitions. I think five thousand shitfaced angry Republicans armed to the teeth, with lowered inhibitions and tempers running high, crammed tightly into confined spaces, would be an interesting social experiment, whether anything happens or not. Go for it, GOP.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 02:02 am
@MontereyJack,
There was a petition awhile back asking to allow this. I received contradictory claims as to whether this petition was legit or was an anti-gun stunt, and I never bothered to figure out what claim was right.

But you're right. It would be an excellent idea. Delegates do indeed have the right to defend themselves from criminal attack.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 04:44 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
It seems to me that it would be extremely hypocritical (not that that has ever stopped Republicans) for the GOP to restrict anybody from bringing any guns they want to their convention, and carrying them openly, after all their rhetoric for the last few years, and further, pace Robert, for them to hold their convention anywhere that restricts people using that facility from bringing in any guns they want, under any circumstances. is truly hypocritical as well. As far as I know, liquor tends to flow freely at conventions anyway, and liquor lowers inhibitions. I think five thousand shitfaced angry Republicans armed to the teeth, with lowered inhibitions and tempers running high, crammed tightly into confined spaces, would be an interesting social experiment, whether anything happens or not. Go for it, GOP.

The purpose of gun rights is to allow people to defend themselves from violent attack, such as during a home invasion, especially in situations in which the police or armed security guards might take time to get there. A political convention, on the other hand, is a place where emotions run high and security guards are right there. Banning guns from political conventions is not hypocrisy, just using judgement to try to insure the best outcome.
0 Replies
 
Lilkanyon
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 05:26 pm
The Declaration of Independance as a defence for gun rights cracks me up. All men created equal and all that. Where was that arguement when dark skinned people where enslaved, when they couldnt vote?

Just goes to show you, the Declaration was not founded in stone, and also the words, only imagined by the men of that day, could not understand how distorted that message would become.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 05:29 pm
@Lilkanyon,
Best argument I have heard for some time re the outdated constitution and guns.
Lilkanyon
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 05:51 pm
I think, the most interesting (and disturbing) stories was one I heard right after the Sandy Hook shooting.

There was a public forum, I think on CNN where people had a pro/con gun debate.

One lady stood up and told her story, how she had shot one man with a shotgun that broke thru her front door. The other one ran. (Tbh? I have no issue with a shotgun for home defense)

Then a man, ex military, stood up and argued that if she had owned a semi auto rifle, she coulda killed them both, and she got no respect at all from him. I was shocked at that.

Isnt the point of having guns in your home is to protect your home? She did that, didnt she? But yet it wasnt enough for this guy. He wanted some Natural Born Killers hollywood movie scenerio. Im sure this poor mother of two already felt awful she had to kill one man, would killing another be better?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 06:21 pm
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
Best argument I have heard for some time re the outdated constitution and guns.

The notion that civil rights are an outdated concept that only our ancestors should have enjoyed, is Fascist.

There are far better arguments out there. How about this one: Our freedom is priceless. We insist on keeping our freedom until the end of time. Our military will defend our freedom from those who seek to abolish it, and will defend using nuclear weapons if necessary.
Lilkanyon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 06:40 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

revelette2 wrote:
Best argument I have heard for some time re the outdated constitution and guns.

The notion that civil rights are an outdated concept that only our ancestors should have enjoyed, is Fascist.

There are far better arguments out there. How about this one: Our freedom is priceless. We insist on keeping our freedom until the end of time. Our military will defend our freedom from those who seek to abolish it, and will defend using nuclear weapons if necessary.


IM not sure you understand the definition of the term "fascist". Or maybe you are just stating your view poorly? Noone is arguing our military anyway. As far as nuclear weapons, they are old fashioned and irrelevant. Even if Iran or N Korea shoots them off, even if we retaliate, its over, so its a stupid no win situation anyway. There is no choice but diplomacy in those cases.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 06:45 pm
@Lilkanyon,
Lilkanyon wrote:
IM not sure you understand the definition of the term "fascist". Or maybe you are just stating your view poorly?

Neither.


Lilkanyon wrote:
As far as nuclear weapons, they are old fashioned and irrelevant. Even if Iran or N Korea shoots them off, even if we retaliate, its over, so its a stupid no win situation anyway. There is no choice but diplomacy in those cases.

If necessary to preserve our freedom, our military will fire them into the population centers of those who seek to deprive us of that freedom. Those population centers will be flattened by the attack.
Lilkanyon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 06:52 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Lilkanyon wrote:
IM not sure you understand the definition of the term "fascist". Or maybe you are just stating your view poorly?

Neither.


Lilkanyon wrote:
As far as nuclear weapons, they are old fashioned and irrelevant. Even if Iran or N Korea shoots them off, even if we retaliate, its over, so its a stupid no win situation anyway. There is no choice but diplomacy in those cases.

If necessary to preserve our freedom, our military will fire them into the population centers of those who seek to deprive us of that freedom. Those population centers will be flattened by the attack.


As will ours...if not from direct attack, from fallout...its a no win situation. You know this already or we would willy nilly attack people with these weapons. There is a reason theyve never been used since WW2. We know how awful they are. We sure have fun with the threat of them, dont we? Sounds like hillybillies with guns. I gotta gun! And Im willin' to use it!
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 06:59 pm
@Lilkanyon,
Let me guess.
Lilkanyon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 07:09 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

Let me guess.


Lol, umm...still thinking on what ur guessing osso, lol.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 09:58 pm
@Lilkanyon,
Lilkanyon wrote:
As will ours...if not from direct attack, from fallout...its a no win situation. You know this already or we would willy nilly attack people with these weapons. There is a reason theyve never been used since WW2. We know how awful they are. We sure have fun with the threat of them, dont we? Sounds like hillybillies with guns. I gotta gun! And Im willin' to use it!

Freedom is more important than life. If the only way to defend our freedom is to end the human race, then the human race will be ended.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2016 05:16 am
@Lilkanyon,
Lilkanyon wrote:

The Declaration of Independance as a defence for gun rights cracks me up. All men created equal and all that. Where was that arguement when dark skinned people where enslaved, when they couldnt vote?

Just goes to show you, the Declaration was not founded in stone, and also the words, only imagined by the men of that day, could not understand how distorted that message would become.

What I actually said was that the Declaration of Independence indicates that the founders believed that rights are inherent rather than bestowed at the pleasure of governments. I was arguing that a prior poster's opinion that:

Quote:
Nope, rights don't inherently exist. They are negotiated by societies.


contradicts the ideas expressed in America's founding documents. Perhaps you'd care to argue with what I actually said.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/05/2021 at 12:05:17