Do You Own a Gun?

[Radar]

LOL!

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Really pierceh. -- you must not insist on being tied up and forced to be free. And don't insist that is what the people of freedom are doing to anyone, let alone you.

When you pass from teenager to full adult (not snarking here, this is but an observation of the road we've all of us walked, some more recently than others) you'll understand how you put your foot in that pitfall. It's possible you'll not do so again. But do learn the lesson, or you will put your foot in it again -- stress, too, upon will.

Paging through an NRA magazine this afternoon while trying to recover from a bit of sunburn I got from attending a Memorial Day ceremony outdoors -- Noxema is my friend -- I found this remark:

"Liberal journalist Michael Kinsley famously quoted a colleague as saying, 'If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory.'" -- Jonah Goldberg

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Prove that it isn't.

Grow up, if you make the initial claim it is your job to back it up. Radar made the claim with no proof and I asked him to prove it so it is his job to back the claim up.

If you really want me too I can. As an American or a westerner you can say it is your "right" because in our society we usually accept the ability to own a gun to protect yourself as a “right”. That “right” doesn't apply to every society though, which means it isn't universal. So, if the ability to own a gun to protect yourself is not universal that means it is not a universal “right”.

Just because something is a "right" in American or western society doesn't mean that it is universal.

Another example, we say we have a "right" to own property. In a communist, anarchical, or even in most Native American societies there is no personal property (land). Are those people having their "rights" taken away from them? In our society we see it that way but they (as long as they support the regime) will disagree with you. Are either of you right? No, it is just perspective.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Grow up, if you make the initial claim it is your job to back it up. Radar made the claim with no proof and I asked him to prove it so it is his job to back the claim up.

If you really want me too I can. As an American or a westerner you can say it is your "right" because in our society we usually accept the ability to own a gun to protect yourself as a “right”. That “right” doesn't apply to every society though, which means it isn't universal. So, if the ability to own a gun to protect yourself is not universal that means it is not a universal “right”.

Just because something is a "right" in American or western society doesn't mean that it is universal.

Another example, we say we have a "right" to own property. In a communist, anarchical, or even in most Native American societies there is no personal property (land). Are those people having their "rights" taken away from them? In our society we see it that way but they (as long as they support the regime) will disagree with you. Are either of you right? No, it is just perspective.

You've proven nothing other than your own ignorance of what rights are. Our rights don't come from society and can't be taken away by society. We are born with our rights and our rights are universal and the same regardless of what "society" we happen to live in. If "society" violates our rights, it doesn't mean that we don't have those rights. It doesn't matter if "society" recognizes rights, they still exist.

We are born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Part of life is defending that life by any means necessary. Any claims by "society" to the contrary are irrelevant. Any claims that we don't have rights is laughable and ludicrous.

Society has no rights. Society is nothing but a collection of individuals and as such, it may have no more powers than we, as individuals, have to grant to it. Society has no legitimate powers over those of a single individual.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Radar

You've proven nothing other than your own ignorance of what rights are. Our rights don't come from society and can't be taken away by society. We are born with our rights and our rights are universal and the same regardless of what "society" we happen to live in. If "society" violates our rights, it doesn't mean that we don't have those rights. It doesn't matter if "society" recognizes rights, they still exist.

We are born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Part of life is defending that life by any means necessary. Any claims by "society" to the contrary are irrelevant. Any claims that we don't have rights is laughable and ludicrous.

Society has no rights. Society is nothing but a collection of individuals and as such, it may have no more powers than we, as individuals, have to grant to it. Society has no legitimate powers over those of a single individual.

It is like talking to a religious fundamentalist.
"Prove to me that God exists"
"It says so in The Bible."

"Prove to me that rights exist"
"it says so in the constitution."

Once again, we are not born with rights because they are human made. You have said before that animals don't have rights but we do. That implies that we are somewhat better than animals which is also laughable to anyone that knows anything about biology. You said that human rights came with the first human. You clearly don't understand evolution because species are constantly changing to fit in with their environments so there isn't a changing point.

It is like saying when does a boy become a man. There is no point when it happens, you have to put an artificial time on it. You would have to do the same thing if you wanted rights to pop out of nowhere.

Also, you are just changing definitions to fit YOUR perspective on how we should live. You guys are turning into brainwashed fundies.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Man that was backward.
You just can't get it.
Freedom, remember?
The right to be free.
We own guns because we have the right to be free... we force nothing on others.
You are perfectly free not to own a gun.
Our way we both live as we like.

You misunderstood me. You are forcing the idea that everyone has a right to own guns when it is a local social right instead of universal. If a society says that you don't have a right to own guns and are perfectly happy in living that way, you are saying they are wrong and should change.

We have the right to be free? That is too broad to be used in an argument because freedom encompasses basically everything. The thought that you can do anything you want is ridiculous and the irony of social restraints is enormous.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

It is like talking to a religious fundamentalist.
"Prove to me that God exists"
"It says so in The Bible."

"Prove to me that rights exist"
"it says so in the constitution."

Once again, we are not born with rights because they are human made. You have said before that animals don't have rights but we do. That implies that we are somewhat better than animals which is also laughable to anyone that knows anything about biology. You said that human rights came with the first human. You clearly don't understand evolution because species are constantly changing to fit in with their environments so there isn't a changing point.

It is like saying when does a boy become a man. There is no point when it happens, you have to put an artificial time on it. You would have to do the same thing if you wanted rights to pop out of nowhere.

Also, you are just changing definitions to fit YOUR perspective on how we should live. You guys are turning into brainwashed fundies.


You misunderstood me. You are forcing the idea that everyone has a right to own guns when it is a local social right instead of universal. If a society says that you don't have a right to own guns and are perfectly happy in living that way, you are saying they are wrong and should change.

We have the right to be free? That is too broad to be used in an argument because freedom encompasses basically everything. The thought that you can do anything you want is ridiculous and the irony of social restraints is enormous.

Human rights existed before there were human beings. We alone have rights because we alone have the level of sentience to have DISCOVERED those rights. Note the fact that I didn't say we CREATED rights.

Humans didn't create rights; we DISCOVERED them in much the same way we DISCOVERED gravity. Both gravity and natural rights are part of natural law. Both are equally immutable and undeniable. Neither of them can be voted, bought, sold, given, or taken away.

We don't have rights because the Constitution says so. We'd have rights without any Constitution, without any government, and without any "society". We are BORN with them. They are as self-evident, tangible, and real as the presence of oxygen.

I did not say human rights came with the first human. You asked when the first human being got their rights, and I said when the first human was born. The rights already existed, but a human didn't get those rights until a human was born.

I'm not changing my definitions. I've been perfectly clear, logical, reasonable, and unlike you...sane in everything I've said and I've never contradicted anything else I've said.

Society doesn't dictate rights. Society does not exist. Only individuals do. A collection of a hundred million people has no more rights than a single person and has no legitimate authority to prevent a single person from exercising their rights.

"If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind."

- John Stewart Mill

You say the right to be free is too broad. Here's a very clear definition of what we have the right to do and it has laser accuracy...

We have the right to do ANYTHING we want as long as our actions don't PHYSICALLY harm, endanger, or infringe upon the person, property, or equal rights of non-consenting others.

Your denial of universal human rights is akin to denying that gravity exists. Your claims that rights are a human social construct are so laughable and idiotic there hasn't been a word invented for this stupidity yet. This is why you're a joke to everyone on this board.

That was hilarious.

[HungLikeJesus]

Are any of you familiar with a book called "Instinct Shooting" by Lucky McDaniel? My stepfather bought a copy for me years ago (and I think it was out of print even then). I was looking for it this morning, but most of our books are stacked in bags in the basement and I couldn't find it.

Instinct Shooting was developed by Lucky, and he would demonstrate the technique using an old bb gun with the sites removed. His finale was to shoot another bb thrown in the air. He was able to teach this technique to a large number of people in a single four-hour lesson, including shooting through a piece of clear tape over a lifesaver rolling across the floor, without breaking the lifesaver, and without using sites.

I'm wondering if any one here has been trained in this technique.

Originally Posted by HLJ

Are any of you familiar with a book called "Instinct Shooting" by Lucky McDaniel? My stepfather bought a copy for me years ago (and I think it was out of print even then). I was looking for it this morning, but most of our books are stacked in bags in the basement and I couldn't find it.

Instinct Shooting was developed by Lucky, and he would demonstrate the technique using an old bb gun with the sites removed. His finale was to shoot another bb thrown in the air. He was able to teach this technique to a large number of people in a single four-hour lesson, including shooting through a piece of clear tape over a lifesaver rolling across the floor, without breaking the lifesaver, and without using sites.

I'm wondering if any one here has been trained in this technique.

I was taught when young by my grandfather, he is amazing... pretty sure he met Lucky. He knew a few slingers and was fair himself. I am a natural. Have not trained for a long time, it hurts my shoulder and wrist now, I hit what I shoot at though. Mostly I shoot B-27 police silhouette but am now doing some FBI bulls-eyes, the cop's are getting too easy.
On the ranch when I practice sniping I use melons, no reason to travel over a thousand yards or two to look at a shot again.
Honestly, I just want one anti to tell me what my target practicing and legal carry does to them, what it actually does. No emotion, just fact.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I was taught when young by my grandfather, he is amazing... pretty sure he met Lucky. He knew a few slingers and was fair himself. I am a natural. Have not trained for a long time, it hurts my shoulder and wrist now, I hit what I shoot at though ...

rkzenrage - it's too bad you're so far away; I'd really like to learn that. I don't think that a book is a substitute for hands-on training (if I can even find the book).

P.S. I'm relatively new to this site, but I've read a few posts where you mention health issues. Is this discussed in more detail somewhere? I'm not morbidly curious, but I think it might help me with a deeper perspective.

Originally Posted by HLJ

rkzenrage - it's too bad you're so far away; I'd really like to learn that. I don't think that a book is a substitute for hands-on training (if I can even find the book).

P.S. I'm relatively new to this site, but I've read a few posts where you mention health issues. Is this discussed in more detail somewhere? I'm not morbidly curious, but I think it might help me with a deeper perspective.

Unfortunatley I am really unable to to it too many times and would be unable to do it enough to teach you.
Honestly, the book is really good and, as long as you really pay attention to what it says, it does a great job.
One of my dreams has been to own a Peacemaker & now I can't use it like it deserves... sucks.
I am friends with the direct descendants of the Henry clan.
You should see some of the weapons they own... it hurts they are so beautiful! My wife was best friends with them in school.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by HLJ

Are any of you familiar with a book called "Instinct Shooting" by Lucky McDaniel? My stepfather bought a copy for me years ago (and I think it was out of print even then). I was looking for it this morning, but most of our books are stacked in bags in the basement and I couldn't find it.

Instinct Shooting was developed by Lucky, and he would demonstrate the technique using an old bb gun with the sites removed. His finale was to shoot another bb thrown in the air. He was able to teach this technique to a large number of people in a single four-hour lesson, including shooting through a piece of clear tape over a lifesaver rolling across the floor, without breaking the lifesaver, and without using sites.

I'm wondering if any one here has been trained in this technique.

I have been through the formal H&K instructed courses using hammer and double tap techniques. I am not familiar with the author but I have heard of the technique.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I have been through the formal H&K instructed courses using hammer and double tap techniques. I am not familiar with the author but I have heard of the technique.

I found a reasonably good article on Wikipedia by searching under Lucky McDaniel.

I've heard of double tap, but what's hammer?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by HLJ

I found a reasonably good article on Wikipedia by searching under Lucky McDaniel.

I've heard of double tap, but what's hammer?

Very interesting! thanks I will read it.

[piercehawkeye45]

Prove me wrong...