Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Probably the best 2nd Amendment speech ever. [View all]discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)113. Mr Weiss
"He cites the blood of his fallen army buddies as the reason why his rights mean more than those of the parents of the dead."
An example of indirect reasoning at best. The need for a military to act at the disposal of its civil authorities is long established. This country owes a lot to those who acted in its service. His defense of his rights citing his fallen comrades is, IMHO, no more on target than those who cite murder victims as a defense for laws against gun ownership.
---------------------------
"HE is more important than the rest of Americans."
Not what I said and, at best, your inference of what he meant.
---------------------------
"Those children had a right to live."
Absolutely. Without equivocation I grant that everyone has a right to life and that this right should be protected equally under the law. The law does not exist as a tool for social experiments or as flag for a politician to write and wave as a means to his/her reelection. I have yet to hear of a law, current or proposed, that would have prevented Adam Lanza from doing what he did.
---------------------------
"One even came out and told me I had no right to life."
I didn't say that and that is the opposite of what I believe.
---------------------------
"The gunner view of rights is for white men only, which is why they push SYG laws that make prey out of African American men."
I think I made it clear that a system which treats everyone equally under the law is the best protection of all. What we have is not perfect; discarding the right to use a tool in self-defense will not make the system better.
Please explain why you see a right to use a tool in self-defense as entitlement.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
129 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Allow me to provide some context in the form of a more complete presentation by him:
NYC_SKP
Jul 2013
#2
Your argument could be applied to the other nine amendments, it's not 1776 any more.
NYC_SKP
Jul 2013
#7
As a Vietnam Era vet and son of a combat wounded WWw2 Vet I would tell Aaron he is a delusional
Vietnameravet
Jul 2013
#59
"No war in your life time was fought for your rights. It's fought for to grow the wealth of the 1%."
KansDem
Jul 2013
#6
This isn't about you (and you are not the only one who fought in Viet Nam). He said HE fought for
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#23
The truth of the matter is that his inconvenience outweighs dead children.
Bonhomme Richard
Jul 2013
#20
Blithely ignoring that gun control works in England, Australia, Japan, etc. ... eom
Kolesar
Jul 2013
#54
Although you did not ask me, I think that the governmental policy of shipping jobs to foreign
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#28
DU is big on racism accusations, it's like a drug to juice up your "liberalism,"
Eleanors38
Jul 2013
#42
Sergeant Voice Crackle doesn't know that prosecutors and law enforcement want regulations on guns
Kolesar
Jul 2013
#52
Obivously I was using the figurative sense. Your literal sense post indicates you're the who's not.
MotherPetrie
Jul 2013
#81
good stuff, well laid out arguments supported by facts, and to the point. n/t
hansberrym
Jul 2013
#109