Quote:
|
You seem to think context has no bearing on the facts, and you couldn't be more wrong.
|
Not any bearing of facts, just not law.
Plus, my true argument is that the founding fathers would not have been looking 200 plus years into the future and thinking "my God! we become a superpower good grief!" so it isn't fair to say they would oppose us helping other countries if they ask for the help, because they probably never thought that the United States would ever face that problem. That is my context.
Quote:
No, I said it was illegal to INITIATE force against someone.
Do you understand the difference?
|
What the hell difference does it make meaning wise? Initiate just means to start. And the start of force would be putting a gun to a person's head and pulling the trigger. What difference does it make?
Quote:
|
Thats a simple analogy, for a person who only demands a simple answer to a complex issue. Its also devoid of the facts of AMERICAN law, individual rights and objective evidence.
|
American law talks about a state owned militia. You added on "only in defensive war" Somewhere and said it was context. I couldn't find it in the constitution. So American law is on my side about gun control. My idea of individual rights is that if owning WMD isn't a personal right, why are guns. I know you said because of the number of people that would be killed, but thats subjective. It comes down to where you think danger out weights usefulness. Where you peg yours and I peg mine is different, hence the different interpretation of individual rights. As for objective evidence, well it was an apology to make you see my thinking of gun control as preventative law enforcement.It doesn't make perfect objective sense, but I wanted to share my thoughts in a see-able way.
As for objective evidence, I've presented it already. The Homicide vs. justifiable gun deaths.
Quote:
People don't revolt because they "think it would be groovy".
People revolt because they would rather risk death or die in the fight against slavery of the mind and body, than succumb to it.
|
Since most of the closing is subjective. This is all I'm going to quote.
People don't revolt because it is groovy, they revolt because they are oppressed and are looking for a way out, some of the time.
The problem is, it isn't the guns of tyrannical government you have to worry about. If thats the problem, I'm hitching town. Not sticking around. (I'm not a slave if I haul ass).
Logically, it is much better to bicker with the government when you think it is too tyrannical and if other's agree, the American government changes accordingly. And if it ever gets so bad, then it isn't America any more, so just leave.
As a right, the gun isn't one. The gun is a tool, just a jumble of clock work that is meant to kill a person. If other's right to life or liberty is endangered by the gun. Then it is fair to get rid of it. If the life or liberty is protected by the gun. Then fine, but the gun isn't a de facto right. Just a tool.