mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Not if the two persons are in the same exact positions no. In midge's point these two groups have different rights -and different obligations

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's get this straight - you think the class of people known as "government agents" have *rights* that trump those of "ordinary men"?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not if the two persons are in the same exact positions no. In midge's point these two groups have different rights -and different obligations

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's get this straight - you think the class of people known as "government agents" have *rights* that trump those of "ordinary men"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please read entire posts before replyin, and stop quoting out of context. k thx.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Because they have extended obligations, forcefully binding ones to put their own safety at risk if necessary or be punished if refusing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in the United States, they don't. The supreme court has ruled; police have ZERO OBLIGATION to protect you and/or to stop crimes in progress.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't oppose your right to a gun, I'm for gun rights.

If you live in country where it wasn't so, you would be violating the laws and would take your punishment - pending on the country I'd sometimes support that and sometimes not.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think *rights* vary from human to human? Or are you talking about something other than rights?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What makes a law legitimate? Who determines which rights are correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

The ancestors that were there before you.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the agreements of men between themselves before you're born can create legitimate obligations upon you? Seriously? Can I draw up a contract that says I'm buying a house from Mr. X, and he gets to collect payment of $40,000,000 from your son who is yet to be born in 30 years?

[ QUOTE ]
You didn't get born in an empty world. Countless of generations have tried to deal with the social contract and succeeded to some degrees albeit with some mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the old social contract. Yes, there have been "some mistakes" - because social contracts are morally bankrupt and inherently flawed.

[ QUOTE ]
But for a young pup or punk, a greenhorn, to come about after he has to be nurtured by his parent and society and just say, I am the law because I am, and add, and I have a gun, is the height of naivety and arrogance although rarely do they co-exist in one individual. These qualities obviously exist concurrently in those that would definitely fail the sanity test for gun ownership. Go back to pushing rocks uphill and think about things instead of speaking and feeling like a big macho man. You are a chicken with no notion of the past, dude!

[/ QUOTE ]

Personal attack and strawman. Standard.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because they have extended obligations, forcefully binding ones to put their own safety at risk if necessary or be punished if refusing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in the United States, they don't. The supreme court has ruled; police have ZERO OBLIGATION to protect you and/or to stop crimes in progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Groovy choice of words. The individual is ultimately responsible for his own safety yes, but your wording is hilarious. I don't really feel the need to discuss this with you though, since you'll find some word to debate or make some sausage salesman analogy again.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't oppose your right to a gun, I'm for gun rights.

If you live in country where it wasn't so, you would be violating the laws and would take your punishment - pending on the country I'd sometimes support that and sometimes not.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think *rights* vary from human to human? Or are you talking about something other than rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

They vary from country to country, this surprises you?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you don't know then?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, the ability to change the state with the given rights and powers at your disposal, I never said anything about guaranteed success - that was your implication. Are you going to continue with the rhetorics long?

[/ QUOTE ]

So if I invade your house, hold you at gunpoint, but then give you "the ability to change" this state of affairs, by giving you the option to move to siberia, or (for example) letting you take a shot at Mike Tyson in the ring, then it's legitimate? You don't have any guarantee of success, but you have the ABILITY to CHANGE things AND the ability to avoid this situation altogether! If you fail, you probably didn't really want to change anything - you "tacitly consent."

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't oppose your right to a gun, I'm for gun rights.

If you live in country where it wasn't so, you would be violating the laws and would take your punishment - pending on the country I'd sometimes support that and sometimes not.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think *rights* vary from human to human? Or are you talking about something other than rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

They vary from country to country, this surprises you?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they vary, they're not rights, unless you think people born in location A are actually members of a class which is morally superior to people born in location B.

Do you think all men are equal? Yes or no please.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because they have extended obligations, forcefully binding ones to put their own safety at risk if necessary or be punished if refusing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in the United States, they don't. The supreme court has ruled; police have ZERO OBLIGATION to protect you and/or to stop crimes in progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Groovy choice of words. The individual is ultimately responsible for his own safety yes, but your wording is hilarious. I don't really feel the need to discuss this with you though, since you'll find some word to debate or make some sausage salesman analogy again.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is hilarious about the wording? You claim that our superior overlords have obligations in exchange for their more expansive rights, but the fact is the obligation you claim does not exist in the United States. This isn't MY wording. This is the Supreme Court's wording.