Tulsa police: Multiple people shot at medical building

Link please.

 

No, not all of your inherent abilities are rights, particularly those that involve other people

 

That's an advertisement.
It seems odd to push a person laying on one of them stretchers through that narrow gate while some nurse is holding the iv all during a massive hurry on it's way to the emergency room.

 

First of all the drug cartels are armed by mostly American made weapons. This shows the system isn't working thanks to the gun lobby supported by right wingers. Your idea that drug cartels are going to make their own guns, is unfounded. There are plenty of drug cartels around the world where gun laws are far more strict. I don't recall they make their own guns in those places.

And I haven't stated that the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed. I stated that the bar of what a civilian may have must be lowered and laws must be stricter. It blows the mind to think a child is not allowed to drive a car because it might cause an fatal accident, but it is allowed to handle items designed to murder. Alcohol has stricter rules as well. These are undisputable facts.

 

The question arises from the principle of do no harm. Some rights can be determined by what harms you wouldn't want perpetrated on you. Since you most likely wouldn't think someone has a right to harm you, from it you can derive the right to protect yourself.

 

Speech doesn't make you lie, guns don't make you kill, and cars don't make you drive recklessly.

 

Owning guns doesn't affect other people.

 

Are you flirting with me?

 

And if you ban guns in The United States, they'll just find another source. But you're wrong about most of their weapons coming from the states.

 

Why not? Who says?

 

Why? Because you say so and can back your opinion with force?

 

I believe you can still find two or three Kalashnikovs among the good American arms of the cartels. There are alternatives to the AR weapons and those guys are in the business of supply and demand trade.

 

I know people don’t like to be harmed. But that’s just an opinion. What makes what you like a “right”.

For the record I subscribe to the non aggression principle myself.

 

Yes, manufacturing firearms by criminals is quite common in places like Australia with strict gun control. You just don’t hear about it in the media because it doesn’t fit the narrative.

https://www.afp.gov.au/news-media/m...uad-seizes-more-firearms-cash-and-drugs-omcgs

 

The cartels get their weapons the same place they get their RPG's and grenades, and wherever that is, it's not America.

 

That many guns are sold every 5 seconds in the US

 

Yea, I suppose a masochist would have a different opinion. I'm not speaking of ice cream flavors here. Other than those suffering from mental illness the fundamental right to protect yourself from harm is unquestionable. Even your subconscious recognizes this in the natural "instinct" of fight or flight defense.

 

There are literally millions of people in prison across the world who OBVIOUSLY disagree with your “do no harm” platitude.

So on what grounds do you assert your “do no harm” mantra supersedes their ideology? Because you say so? Because you have more people who agree with you and you can force that on others through violence if need be?

 

Did I say everyone recognizes this fundamental right?

 

Then it’s not a “fundamental right”. It’s just one you’ve made up and use threat of jail time and violence to enforce.

 

See the problem here is the same problem that atheists have. If your morals, or “fundamental rights” in this case, simply come from men, then they are not inherent, they are not fundamental, they are not absolute and they are simply cast aside as the whims of the people change.

 

So, you don't believe a person has a right to defend themselves, amirite?

 

Well no of course I do. But that’s because that right comes from God. Not men.

Without God or a creator, the argument made in the Declaration of Independence could NEVER be made and there is no such thing as an inherent or absolute right without a creator.

 

I think we're arguing the same thing, but you're not understanding my points.

 

Well my apologies if I read the thread wrong but it seemed like 557 was trying to make the point that if we take the position that these “rights” come from men then in reality we have no rights at all. We only have privileges granted to us by other men.

Which means at any given time, those men can strip us of those privileges, including the “right” to self defense because our rights are not absolute because they come from men.

But if I read it wrong my apologies.