Barack Obama on Gun Control.

[Shredderbeam]

So, you agree that I could sit a baby on this side of the couch, and sit a monkey on the other. Shoot the monkey, shoot the baby, and you would think that I did nothing wrong?

I wouldn't really have a problem with it.

The disabled man respects your right to life, but an animal does not. Any man, disabled or not, could defy your right to life and property, however, so could any human.

It is when they defy those rights that I may kill them.

Your examples have reach a level to where if I merely stepped on your shoes out of frustration, I deserve to die. I'm a rational being, however, remember .. I did not respect your property.

Eh, it's really a bit different. You stepping on my shoes is not really a threat against my life.

So, my example of the man who's a bit messed up in the head deserves death, however for the other man, who's retardation can reach exceeding points, gets to have his life in the decision of the men with guns?

The one who attacks the lives of others is killed, while the retarded man, if he is still somewhat rational, gets to live, yes.

Sigh. What good is there arguing between two people, both whom morals back them up. All that can be done is to bring up examples, and have them opposed. This has turned into a race of who will crack first, evidently.

You're questioning me on my worldview, specifically, the "rights" section.

 

[xestrox]

barrack obama is against gun rights as most democrats are, and some of you posted saying its wrong to kill someone for breaking into your house and robbing you, well tbh 99%of robbers have a weapon and they have it to kill you or harm you, (unless of course this is there first robbery and they are broke.. lol) also i dont agree with either of the presidential cantidates completely this election, but im republican and i refuse to support a muslam that wont put his hand on his heart for the pledge to our country, aswell as i wont support a republican such as mccain that is so liberal sided on some of his views, btw obama is going to only offer the stimulist package to people/business's making under 200k a year, and people/business's making over that hes raisins taxes for, and please rememebr alot of small business's and "Mom and Pop" grocery stores that are not big business's and supply jobs for alot of people in poor areas will be drastically affected by this, and will be able to afford to hire less workers, making there more poor americans and some of them will resort to crime to support there life/family, if you are planning on flaming me please include your opinion on the stimulist package not being offered to everyone and higher taxes for those small business's,\

(wish president ronald reagan was still around than this country would be all in the good)

 

[Rahul]

Is it possible for a black man to vote like this? Anyways I like how McCain will allow automatic rifles. I wish McCain would win

 

[Arya]

Is it possible for a black man to vote like this? Anyways I like how McCain will allow automatic rifles. I wish McCain would win

Yes, it is. It's been that way for quite a way now, Hitler.

 

[Pvp Killer]

guy i think that obama will be the next president of Usa, mcCain dont have any chance

 

[xestrox]

pvp, obviously your looking at what is being said by the liberal media and there so called "polls" id like to see where you obtain your source of information from that provides you with this assumption.

 

[Straggler]

It depends on their level of mental retardation. If they're just stupid, then no, for they are still rational and capable of respecting my rights. If they're completely out of it, to the extent that you can't even communicate with them, and they're in nobody's possession, then sure, go for it.

That's not what I said, though. There are people just stupid enough to not be able to comprehend the concept of rights, but still can live a fulfilling life and bring joy to people around them, give them companionship of another human. I really can't see how it would be all right if you killed this person, lets say, just because you felt like it. I'm not sure where you're from, but that's certainly not how the United States judicial and criminal system works.

 

[Straggler]

pvp, obviously your looking at what is being said by the liberal media and there so called "polls" id like to see where you obtain your source of information from that provides you with this assumption.

If he won't, I will. Here are several polls that are liberal, neutral, and conservative alike (for example, FOX and Gallup (old version) are really in no way liberal bias). You're allowed to refuse the evidence, but in two weeks, you'll be proven wrong.

 

[Shredderbeam]

That's not what I said, though. There are people just stupid enough to not be able to comprehend the concept of rights, but still can live a fulfilling life and bring joy to people around them, give them companionship of another human.

If they respect my rights, I'll respect theirs.

I really can't see how it would be all right if you killed this person, lets say, just because you felt like it. I'm not sure where you're from, but that's certainly not how the United States judicial and criminal system works.

If they were capable of having a fulfilling life and bringing joy to others, then they're probably not nonrational.

 

[LegitNamesCo]

If he won't, I will. Here are several polls that are liberal, neutral, and conservative alike (for example, FOX and Gallup (old version) are really in no way liberal bias). You're allowed to refuse the evidence, but in two weeks, you'll be proven wrong.

You do know, that that is a very very VERY small % of people in the US, most of them are probably teens that can't vote, anywase.

 

[Straggler]

You do know, that that is a very very VERY small % of people in the US, most of them are probably teens that can't vote, anywase.

Wrong. Gallup, CBS, and NBC do not only poll teens who cannot vote. What would be the point of that?

 

[LegitNamesCo]

Wrong. Gallup, CBS, and NBC do not only poll teens who cannot vote. What would be the point of that?

Most polls are online.

It's easy to lie about your age.
etc, etc.


Anywase, I highly doubt those polls are an accurate depiction of the nation.

 

[Tyranic]

He's not trying to destroy the second ammendment, maybe a little gun control is good for america? You ever thought of that?

 

[The_Phoenix_HalfBreed]

No, I don't believe the polls are online. I believe they do it like they do the census.

 

[Shredderbeam]

He's not trying to destroy the second ammendment, maybe a little gun control is good for america? You ever thought of that?

Please don't violate my right to property, thanks.

 

[Tyranic]

Please don't violate my right to property, thanks.

I'm not voilating you're right, i'm speaking against it. Don't violate my right to freedom of speech, thanks.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I'm not voilating you're right, i'm speaking against it. Don't violate my right to freedom of speech, thanks.

My point is that I have a right to property, and that as long as I'm not violating your rights, you cannot violate mine.

Also, I did not violate your right to free speech (which, incidentally, you don't have on this server), I was attacking your argument.

So tell me: How do you justify violating my property rights?

 

[Tyranic]

Sometimes rights need to be violated for the rights or (in this case) safety of others. Plus it is not completely violating your right to bear arms, only limiting the selection.

edit: I think having to use a 9mm instead of a beretta is something i'd sacrafice for the greater good of my country.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Sometimes rights need to be violated for the rights or (in this case) safety of others. Plus it is not completely violating your right to bear arms, only limiting the selection.

Nobody has the right to violate anybody's rights, though.

Also, note that rights are reciprocal. If you have the right to go out and physically strip certain people of their property "just in case", then why don't I have that right?

 

[Tyranic]

Nobody has the right to violate anybody's rights, though.

Also, note that rights are reciprocal. If you have the right to go out and physically strip certain people of their property "just in case", then why don't I have that right?

You mean like how rosa parks didn't have the right to violate the white mans right to the front seat?

And the right to strip you of weapons would be the governments right alone. And they wouldn't just come in your house and take it they would probly offer some cupon to exchange it for a legal model or something.