pcosmar
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 54,940
Natural law..
The essential right to life. and self preservation/self defense that is inherent to all living things.
"The right to bear arms"... where does this limit begin?
- Thread starter NewUser
- Start date
Natural law..
The essential right to life. and self preservation/self defense that is inherent to all living things.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,925
You are mistaken. The Virginia Tech shooter used handguns, not assault rifles. That's right. The most deadly mass shooting in U.S. history did not use an assault rifle.
That's why that jackass Piers Morgan likes to talk about how the batman shooter injured the most people. The batman shooter used an assault rifle. That just goes to show you that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. You've been hoodwinked by the gun control lobby which is currently in "You can keep your handgun we just want your assault rifle" mode. Don't forget that it used to be all about the handgun. One of the oldest gun control lobbies in America is Handgun Control Inc.
Acala
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 13,421
Killing people is not hard. They are relatively fragile. Virtually everyone has numerous opportunities on a daily basis to kill multiple people with little effort. But we don't. You cannot make the world safe from killers no matter what you do. The best you can do is to try to not make so many killers and try to sequester those that you can identify.
I'm not saying we can (or should) try and preemptively stop killing. I'm just saying that these mass shooters are pretty ineffective at wreaking the maximum amount of havoc.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,925
You believe this because.......?
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,925
Ummm....I think Acala is saying that mass shooters are pretty ineffective at wreaking the maximum amount of havoc. So...what's your point?
Because bullets can't kill 50 people with just one click (or "pull").
Are you seriously denying the fact that bombs are more lethal than handguns?
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
The absolute and universal moral law that God legislated, that is not a matter of human opinion, or subject to amendment at the hands of a committee of people presuming to have the authority to make up their own laws and impose them on others.
When such committees write imaginary laws that contradict the true law, then their laws are void. An unjust law is no law at all.
Last edited:
So...what exactly are these laws and why should I be subjected to them?
I'm not trying to start a religious arguments, but the "God" part really throws me off. If you simply said "natural rights", I wouldn't have a problem with it.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,925
Are you being deliberately dishonest or honestly confused? Acala wasn't brought up people killed by gasoline. You said it was easier to kill with "AR's and bombs". AR means "AR-15" right? AR-15s fire bullets. You can't kill 50 people with just one "click" of an AR-15 either. But you can kill 50 people by applying one lit match to one gallon of gasoline.
Edit: And as for handguns, I already proved that you were mistaken in your belief that the Virginia Tech shooter used ARs. He used handguns.
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
You don't have a choice. Have you ever seen the scene in the cartoon where the Road Runner ran off a cliff and didn't fall, because he had never learned about the law of gravity, and then Wile E. Coyote fell, because he had already learned about it? That wasn't real.
Natural rights come from God. If there is no God, then there are no natural rights. If there are natural rights, then God exists, and they come from him.
Furthermore, if I did just say natural rights, you would still be able to ask the exact same question you asked about God's law: "what exactly are these laws and why should I be subjected to them?" If you can answer it when it's put one way, then you can answer it when you put it the other way.
Yes, because people will just stop and look around while you pour gasoline all over their building
And who cares if I was mistaken and he used handguns? My point was that it would be MUCH easier to kill more people with bombs than gasoline or handguns.
If we both decided to go on a day-long rampage where we had unlimited amounts of weapons and wanted to kill as many people as possible, do you honestly believe that gasoline and matches would kill more than bombs and grenade launchers?
All I'm saying is that if these mass shooters really wanted to kill more people, they'd be better off using bombs. That's all I'm saying.
Morality can exist without God. Religion does not have a monopoly on morals.
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
That's not true. Morality is God's law. God's law cannot exist without God.
According to whom? Who is to say that God even exists? If it does not exist, are you implying that we don't have natural rights? Are you implying that if it doesn't exist, morality does not exist?
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
If God doesn't exist, then neither does morality, which includes natural rights.
Without God's existence, there could not exist a law of God for anyone to violate.
How exactly does that work? How is it that morality cannot exist without God?
Where is your proof that God exists or that it's "laws" exist?
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
I am not claiming to prove that God exists, only that if God doesn't exist, then neither do his laws.
You do agree with that right: If God does not exist, then neither do God's laws.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,925
Yes, because people will just stop and look around while you pour gasoline all over their building
Acala already gave you a reference. Ignore it if you will but you're just making yourself look silly.
Except your own example proves you were wrong. AR 15s don't make it easier to kill people than handguns. AR-15s make it easier to kill people from a long distance away than do handguns. Why do you think the military still issues handguns to soldiers? There are times when a side arm is a more efficient killing tool. Oh, and you didn't say "easier to kill people with bombs", you said "easier to kill people with ARs or bombs."
Here's your quote again:
Finally, gasoline can be used to make an effective bomb. Or have you never heard of a fuel-air bomb?
Well you've change your scenario from ARs and bombs to bombs and grenade launchers. Is it honestly your intent to keep changing your scenario until you "win" the argument? Anyway, it all depends. If I set a high rise on fire with my gasoline I would potentially kill more people than you would with your bombs and grenade launchers. Of course I suppose next you'll change the scenario to say "suitcase nukes and grenade launchers."
All you're saying this time. Earlier you said ARs.
You're trying to say that semi-automatic weapons are more effective at killing than high-powered, full-automatic rifles, and that gasoline and matches is better at killing than bombs.
Seriously? If you knew that a group of thugs was coming to your house to murder you right now, would you want an AR or a pistol? If you decided to blow them up when they pulled up in their car, would you rather ignite some gasoline or set off a bomb?
I mean, what is your argument? Are you saying that you couldn't kill more people with ARs and bombs than gasoline and pistols?
Seriously? If you knew that a group of thugs was coming to your house to murder you right now, would you want an AR or a pistol? If you decided to blow them up when they pulled up in their car, would you rather ignite some gasoline or set off a bomb?
I mean, what is your argument? Are you saying that you couldn't kill more people with ARs and bombs than gasoline and pistols?
