The Rabbi

Abominable: you have not defined or explained them. You have pointed to animals' instinct for self preservation as a proof of the existence of natural rights, you have pointed to children playing as a proof for the existence of natural rights, you have quoted the Declaration of Independence as proof, and you have made a bunch of baseless assertions about my beliefs, of which you are completely mistaken. But nowhere have you explained where these rights come from, what they consist of, or what their parameters are. I have challenged you repeatedly and you have failed to deliver, preferring to believe that I am some kind of agent of the government or a shirker or whatever. You have made this statement: I truly think you are clueless here. Rights as a legal construct and right as a preferred course of action have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. They do not, cannot, "operate together," Any more than duty operates with doody.

Sorry but if I join an organization or give money I want to have some assurance that the money will have a positive effect and not be used to blow someone else's horn. The orgs you mentioned (and I'll throw JPFO in there too) like to do two things: scare monger among gun owners ("they'll be going door to door for your guns! Send us money now!") and bash the NRA. There might be some value in some of the positions they stake out and some of the information they disseminate. But the return on investment is nowhere near what the NRA provides.

I've heard that argument. I'd say, states' rights is great and lets fight that battle elsewhere. Already the concept has been trampled so many times it looks like the wily Coyote after the road runner's gotten through with him. If we're going to have massive central power, let's at least get some benefit from it for once.

What legislation has the Second Amendment Foundation, GOA, and VCDL helped to pass or craft? What pieces of legislation have they been directly responsible for either passing or having withdrawn or defeating? I'll add JPFO in there as well.

No people like you are dangerous. You talk about rights but you don't have a clue what you mean. You can't even define what they are. You can't explain your positions, much less defend them. You have not and cannot distinguish between "right" as a legal concept and "right" as a correct course of action. I am surprised it took you this long to drag out the Jews under Hitler. Let me be unequivocal: Jews had no rights. You can't do those things to people who do have them. If you want to argue their rights were violated, let me ask what difference there was. The answer is none. Rights unrecognized and unenforced cease to be rights. Your arguments (and I hesitate to dignify your posts with the term) consist of obfuscations, accusations, and muddle. Your argument is that self defense is "just moral and proper." That is merely begging the question. Even if I were to concede those things, that does not translate into a right. Lots of things are just moral and proper and fail to achieve the level of rights. I present reasons and arguments and to you it reads like "Newspeak." That should tell you something right there about your ability to comprehend this discussion.

There's a jaundiced eye and there's outright paranoid tinfoil hattery. I didnt see anything in the text as posted that suggested anything negative. Is there some information here you're not sharing?

So we should oppose the legislation because it "might" turn out to be detrimental in some unspecified way?

Check my sig line for your answer.

Mark, socialism doesn't kill people. People kill people. Socialism is an idea, like rights. Christians have killed more people than than anyone else. But I don't think that's definitive in deciding whether Christianity is good or bad. Killing people isn't a criterion for deciding whether an idea is right or wrong. Let's just stipulate that I could kill you and you wouldn't know about it until the next morning when you missed breakfast. As for backing up your beliefs with a rifle, I guess that's easier than defending them with words. 'Cause you sure haven't done that. I claim no such thing. You haven't been paying attention.

I never saw a post where you lifted my skirt tails. You must be fantasizing again. Similarly you are fantasizing if you think you have answered my question. You have described an instinct, not a right. A proclivity, as you call it, is not the same thing as a right. I have a proclivity to procreate. All animals do. That doesn't translate into a right, anymore than the tendency towards self-preservation. Your last line tells me you still don't understand my position. A right does not exist independent of society's recognition. That is the key here. You seem to think there exists some abstract right that people buy into. Bosh. There isn't. Observing animals is not a proof. Observing children playing is not a proof. If anything those are counter-proofs. The proof is what happens in the legal system generally and characteristically in any given country. The Soviet constitution guaranteed a bunch of rights. No Soviet citizen ever got to enjoy them because they were not recognized by that society. Ergo the Soviet citizen did not have rights, even though there was a constitution that theoretically guaranteed them. Similarly so was the constitution of Weimar Germany. It also guaranteed rights but the Nazis, with the acquiescence of the German legal profession and society at large, gutted those rights so they did not exist anymore.

It's purely practical. Society recognizes the right and enforces it generally. That right stems from one (or more) of the three sources I mentioned.

Mark, on your view we cannot demonstrate that socialism is bad. Socialism is merely a preference. Similarly on your view you cannot demonstrate where rights come from, what they consist of, or what their parameters are. Your views are merely your preference. They cannot be subjected to vigorous examination (or any examination) and so are mere statements of belief or preference. As such they are not superior to anyone else's statements or preferences. On my view I can demonstrate where the right comes from, what it's parameters are, and what other similar rights consist of. I would take something that can be demonstrated over something that depends on your word for it any day of the week. So would most people who aren't you.

It makes me feel better to know that I know something and can defend it rather than putting political philosophy on the same basis as religion, where everyone has an opinion and no one's opinion is more or less valuable than anyone else's. Maybe we should just quit arguing with the anti's and all agree to get along. We have our ideas and they have theirs. We aren't any more right than they are.

Marlin 30-30 lever gun. Ammo is relatively inexpensive. Gun is relatively accurate. Will penetrate but not as much as other rifle calibers. Has killed more deer in the US than any other caliber.

It will depend entirely on what you want to do with it. For going to the range and punching holes I suspect you could come out much cheaper than a Saiga. There are plenty of bolt guns in cheap calibers out there. The Mosin Nagant is one. I am really sold on the Saiga in .223 as HD and fun plinking gun. Yeah the ammo is a little more than 7.62. But you get a choice of bullet styles for HD that you cannot get with 7.62. And the round is better for inside the house as well.

OK, so you "feel" you have rights and that's good enough. You don't need to explain them to anyone, to mention how and why you have these things, where they came from, what they consist of. I can't argue with that. I can't prove your feelings wrong. I am certain you feel this way. But going through life with the introspection of a potato just isn't an attractive option to me.

Oh great. Another wife out for my blood.

After umpteen pages we're getting somewhere. Yes, I do not believe in a "right to self defense" that isn't spelled out somewhere, either by common law, court decisions, or statute or some combination of all three. There you have it. If you believe there is such a thing please (my third request here and you keep dodging it) spell out how you know there is such a thing, what the parameters of it are, and where it came from.

I think it's learned behavior because generally the issue comes from empathy. "That could be me lying there" causes the most pain. And that kind of feeling only comes a little later in life, like childhood. Of course some people never develop it. As I say Jackdog, a good shoot itself wouldn't really bother me. If I had been in Sinkers liquor store when the 2 guys tried to rob it I dont think I would be bothered by shooting them (and killing one). It would be disturbing, like a car accideent, but that's different. There it was obvious what was going on and what needed to be done.

The answer to your questions are: 1) No, some people need to be killed. 2) Why do we need police? That's why we have guns.

If it meant we could carry in all 50 it would be money well spent. I wouldn't begrudge it at all.

The idea of killing someone who is a threat to me doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is the idea that maybe it might have turned out differently if I had done something else. Maybe the situation wasn't quite as I perceived it. Maybe he was playing a stupid joke. I would feel pretty bad if it turned out that way and the possibility of that more than anything else would prevent me from pulling the trigger.

But I'm already those things!

Do you think it will make a difference that your experience was war time? I dunno. I feel sorry for anyone who approaches you with hostile intent. By the end of the encounter they'll have dropped and be giving you twenty.

Obviously it will depend. If there is some law enforcement I would hate to be explaining to the nice officer why I have a loaded long gun in my car, in contravention to TN law. So I think 1 hi cap 9mm (SIG P226 or 228 in my case), 1 .44mag for those heavy weight shots and probably an SKS with strippers. If there is no LE around then an AR-15 because they are just so tacticool.