About that Second Amendment . . .

"Natural rights" are meaningless and nonexistent, whatever Thomas Jefferson might have to say to the contrary.

They are the most real world ones there are....though people are usually confused about what natural rights are.

A natural right is whichever ones you make yours.
 
They are the most real world ones there are....though people are usually confused about what natural rights are.

A natural right is whichever ones you make yours.

A natural right is the product of the might-makes-right principle? Seems counterintuitive.
 
Are the rights that one can establish and keep for oneself not the most natural and real world of rights?

By that standard you would have hardly any rights at all. Legal rights exist because of social consensus that they should.
 
Would someone explain the rationale for resurrecting an issue that has already been decided by the United States Supreme Court in TWO recent landmark cases?

Are there any opinions or contributions here that break NEW ground or in any way improve upon the quality of discourse found in the majority and/or dissenting opinions in Heller or McDonald?

No, I didn't think so.
 
Would someone explain the rationale for resurrecting an issue that has already been decided by the United States Supreme Court in TWO recent landmark cases?

This is a political, not a legal, discussion. Case law is irrelevant.
 
By that standard you would have hardly any rights at all.

No, I would make no qualms about securing the rights I wish to have and keep.

Just like I do now LOL

Legal rights exist because of social consensus that they should.

Right, but we were talking about natural rights, not legal ones.

Legal rights are a construct of man....social consensus.

Natural rights are what happens as a direct result of the application of force to secure said rights whatever they may be at any given moment in time.

You might think you have a right to your property but if I kick your ass and take it from you then the reality is you don't.

And legal rights function off that too, as they are meaningless without the threat of force themselves.

If you didn't have government force backing your rights, your rights would only extend as far as you could extend your force to secure said rights.
 
Last edited:
Depend on your methods, that might end up depriving you of the civil rights you have now.

You're talking about legal rights again.


Are we talking natural or legal?

And highly unlikely considering where I live.
 
This is a political, not a legal, discussion. Case law is irrelevant.

There isn't sufficient political will or wherewithal to repeal or further weaken the Second Amendment. Gun control is dead for now.
 
You think KO is an ATF agent?

LMFAO.

No, "KO" looks more like a cartoon Marne Corps drill sergeant to me, unlike you who seems to think he's a real person daring some communist to take his guns away.
 
No, "KO" looks more like a cartoon Marne Corps drill sergeant to me, unlike you who seems to think he's a real person daring some communist to take his guns away.

Marines don't have drill Sergeants LOL
 
No, I don't.

But you are free to copy or link them in this thread.

You told me to go look I think you can manage it. Your level of denial is impressive. How many threads did you post pretty much the same thing? You're trolling and you're lacking support.

Ever fire a weapon? I'm wondering if you're one of those guys who breaks down and cries.
 
This is like watching a retard trying to fuck a doorhandle.
'Awkward'.
 
Marines don't have drill Sergeants LOL

Well golly gosh! I knew that Marines didn't like being referred to as "soldiers" but I never realized that drill instructors got their panties in a bunch over being referred to as "sergeants" (even though that may be their actual rank). Please excuse this egregious violation of military etiquette. Who would have thought that The Few & The Proud were such delicate little flowers with such tender little feelies?
Semper fi, Sergeant Snowflake!
 
Back
Top