View Poll Results: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

Voters
3425. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2,115 61.75%
  • No

    1,310 38.25%
  1. #37541
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    Well, The US Supreme Court supports my assumption. And what they do in other countries is not my concern, but are you implying someone in Germany can attack another with intent to do physical harm and you are not allowed to defend yourself? And sometimes defending yourself does result in the lost of life. Not as the goal, but as a result of successfully doing it.
    no, i´m not implying that at all, you´re not allowed to kill them though without having a very good reason to do so, so if your life is at stake you´re naturally doing everything you can to defend yourself, but if your life isn´t at risk you can´t just take another life and claim self defense without having to fear jail time
    secretly gay

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    and i will be remembered forever as the pants hat glove shoes naked guy from vienna

  2. #37542
    Warchief PRE 9-11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New England, USA
    Posts
    2,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    Because right's totally can't be infringed, right?
    Wait. So natural rights cannot be taken away by governments. Except for the the governments that do have the legal authority to take them away?

    This is making less and less sense. Thus, underlying the inherent problem with an idea like "natural rights".
    Reasonable minds can differ

  3. #37543
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    Wait. So natural rights cannot be taken away by governments. Except for the the governments that do have the legal authority to take them away?

    This is making less and less sense. Thus, underlying the inherent problem with an idea like "natural rights".
    i think we can end this, i´m still waiting for an explaination about where´s the difference between a government granting a right and a government protecting a right when both have the legal power to take them away as they wish
    secretly gay

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    and i will be remembered forever as the pants hat glove shoes naked guy from vienna

  4. #37544
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    That's an opinion.



    Show me a right you believe to be universal, and I'll show you a government with the authority to take that right away.



    Yes. I agree that there will never be evidence that "natural rights" are factually true. It's an idea, that some people believe in. But just believing in something doesn't make it true.

    - - - Updated - - -



    What? I thought natural rights were inalienable. You can't just give them up. They always exist. Right? Right?
    You can give up a natural right, but it cannot be taken away from outside forces. You should study what inalienable means.

  5. #37545
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    Wait. So natural rights cannot be taken away by governments. Except for the the governments that do have the legal authority to take them away?

    This is making less and less sense. Thus, underlying the inherent problem with an idea like "natural rights".
    Who said anything about legal authority?

    You seem to have trouble putting together a post that doesn't include some of your own brand of bullshit intended to make it look like you're "successful." Do you get bruises from patting yourself on the back this much?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Odekahn View Post
    You should study what inalienable means.
    He knows what it means. He just doesn't "agree" with the definition.
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I am ACTUALLY ASKING for them to ban me and relieve me from the misery of this thread.

  6. #37546
    Quote Originally Posted by Odekahn View Post
    You can give up a natural right, but it cannot be taken away from outside forces. You should study what inalienable means.
    uhm, ok, maybe this is an issue with the language barrier, but is capital punishment not taking away a natural right?
    secretly gay

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    and i will be remembered forever as the pants hat glove shoes naked guy from vienna

  7. #37547
    Herald of the Titans Ghostpanther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    no, i´m not implying that at all, you´re not allowed to kill them though without having a very good reason to do so, so if your life is at stake you´re naturally doing everything you can to defend yourself, but if your life isn´t at risk you can´t just take another life and claim self defense without having to fear jail time
    So it is a "inalienable" right even in Germany to defend yourself to the degree which is necessary to preserve it. The major difference maybe in the US is ( at least in most States ) the government understands the one defending themselves can not read the attacker's mind to the extent of harm meant to them.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    i think we can end this, i´m still waiting for an explaination about where´s the difference between a government granting a right and a government protecting a right when both have the legal power to take them away as they wish
    The difference is one is already present and is being protected. And the government can not take away a right protected under the US Constitution as they wish. It involves a lot of legal procedures which must follow how the US Constitution can be amended. It was designed that way on purpose. Possible, of course. But not as some wish, but most States must approve such a amendment, thus the reason for the name "The United States of America". The interpretation of the Constitution has been if anything, expanded to the protection of inalienable rights extended to even more citizens.

  8. #37548
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    So it is a "inalienable" right even in Germany to defend yourself to the degree which is necessary to preserve it. The major difference maybe in the US is ( at least in most States ) the government understands the one defending themselves can not read the attacker's mind to the extent of harm meant to them.
    that´s pretty crucial though, because then you have stand your ground laws and such that expand the definition of self defense beyond ridiculousness and so ones inalienable right does trump another ones inalienable right

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    The difference is one is already present and is being protected. And the government can not take away a right protected under the US Constitution as they wish. It involves a lot of legal procedures which must follow how the US Constitution can be amended. It was designed that way on purpose. Possible, of course. But not as some wish, but most States must approve such a amendment, thus the reason for the name "The United States of America". The interpretation of the Constitution has been if anything, expanded to the protection of inalienable rights extended to even more citizens.
    yes they can... so what´s an inalienable right worth when it´s not inalienable? kind of makes it not that inalienable if you ask me
    secretly gay

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    and i will be remembered forever as the pants hat glove shoes naked guy from vienna

  9. #37549
    Herald of the Titans Ghostpanther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    that´s pretty crucial though, because then you have stand your ground laws and such that expand the definition of self defense beyond ridiculousness and so ones inalienable right does trump another ones inalienable right

    - - - Updated - - -



    yes they can... so what´s an inalienable right worth when it´s not inalienable? kind of makes it not that inalienable if you ask me
    Stand your ground means you do not have the obligation to flee if someone is attacking you. The one attacking does lose some rights by acting in a criminal way. We have free speech, but we are not allowed to yell fire!! in a crowded theater if there is no fire. And yes, there are some restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. But nothing which would handicap a citizen from being able to defend themselves successfully. And that is the major purpose of the 2nd IMO.

    No, they cannot just up and disband a right in the Constitution even if the President or Congress decides they want to. It takes the majority of the States to approve a amendment. What part are you having issues with understanding? The Bill of rights is a fundamental part of our Constitution and the 2nd is part of it to the extent each citizen has the right to life and to defend themselves. Criminals lose some rights by default of them being criminals. The Supreme Court has ruled capital punishment is not a violation of the Constitution.

  10. #37550
    Merely a Setback Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    25,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    The Supreme Court has ruled capital punishment is not a violation of the Constitution.
    I can't wait to see the rulings post-botching due to drug switching. Anyone with an ounce of brain activity can see that someone gasping and writhing for an hour is cruel and unusual.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    it has become a sad state of affairs that people would rather look like brain washed idiots then admit they was wrong

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •