Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
The problem isn't any regulations I choose to voluntarily impose upon myself. The problem is when the government imposes someone elses regulations upon me.
Go back to the begging and see how this exchange began. I gave an opinion, and then you and others started ranting about rights and the government. I did say in passing that I would likely support a 'safe storage' law, but so what...there is no such law in the works and even if there was, this thread isn't about it.
See this thread is about a product and our opinions thereof. Whether I like it or not the product in OP is perfectly legal, so watching you folks get bent out of shape over imaginary laws and other people's opinions is a source of entertainment.
What you said "in passing" was that you would support the government infringing upon the right to keep arms by not allowing storage devices like tissue boxes on the market. That means you would support the government infringing upon the right to keep arms. You can try to sugar coat it all you wish but your own words out you. And you might think this is entertaining but I happen to think it is a good opportunity to give other people facts so they can see your perspective is one of being in favor of infringements... as long as you personally agree with those infringements. And it gives folks an opportunity to see your level of integrity as you resort to insults against those who disagree with you and use Bill Clinton like word games as to what the definition of infringements............. isn't.
Regardless of what you might think this thread is about the exchange between you and I has been about how limits upon the right to keep an arm in a tissue box are infringements upon the right to keep arms.
You can have your tissue box, you can put a loaded gun in it, and you can leave it on the coffee table. The tissue box should just have a lock on it. A fingerprint, a code, a key, an RFID, any kind of lock. Hell you can take this tissue box as-is and just keep a slim trigger lock on the gun itself, no problem.
How magnanimous of you to allow people to have a tissue box as long as it conforms to your personal regulations.
Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
-The 2nd Amendment's word of "keep" applies to any and all methods of "keeping" because of these 4 words "shall not be infringed". I, and everyone else, has the right to "keep" an "arm" mounted over the mantle, leaning in the corner, laying on the kitchen table, and even hidden in a tissue box if we so choose because we all have the right to "keep". But those who would have the government control what products are allowed on the market in order to limit "keeping" to only the methods they personally consider "reasonable", "appropriate", and/or "acceptable" are wanting to infringe on the right to "keep" by limiting how arms are "kept".
Whether you like it or not, Strict Scrutiny is the tool you have to use, and Strict Scrutiny is going to allow some limits to stand. You can sit there and cry about it all day but that's how it is. Your argument here isn't going to win any court battles. I suggest you begin practice in using Strict Scrutiny.
Like it or not Strict Scrutiny is nothing more than a government invented standard used to justify imposing limits (infringements). While the right to keep and bear arms might stand to benefit from a Strict Scrutiny standard it is still nothing more than a standard the government uses to justify infringing. And heralding Strict Scrutiny as a wonderful thing is the same as a slave being grateful his master took off one of his chains. But that still leaves him chained.
Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
-Your not recognizing that human beings are born with what are referred to as "natural" or even "God given" rights does not negate the fact that humans have the rights they were born with simply because they were born as human beings. There doesn't even have to be a government or authority of any kind doing any mandating or requiring or allowing for people to have those rights.
It's as testable as gravity. Drop a man off in the middle of an ocean with nothing and see if the shark will obey his assertion to a right to life; see if the water will keep him upright. Simpler yet, observe a pregnant woman enter an abortion clinic. If her unborn has a natural right to life, the abortion will fail; it will be literally physically impossible to abort the pregnancy. The only human who could have ever had a natural right is perhaps Jesus himself.
Nature is a real son of a *****. Nature does not afford anyone any right. Might really does make right, and that's why we carry firearms, it's why a silent few really do keep weapons to combat the government.
The right to keep and bear arms exists, as a civil right, not a natural right.
Drop a man in the middle of the ocean with nothing and he still has the right to life... he just has to fight the sharks to keep it. Kinda like those who believe "shall not be infringed" means what it says have to fight to keep it.
And it is up to the man to swim (fight the water) in order to keep his right to life by staying alive. Kinda like those who believe "shall not be infringed" means what it says have to swim against the government's desire to control guns to keep it.
And a child inside a pregnant woman most certainly has the right to life but the mother does not have the right to take that life away from the child by killing it with an abortion. I have no doubt that the child fights for his/her right to life in the womb to the best of his/her ability as the abortionist the mother hired is killing it.
The right to life itself is the basis for the right to keep and bear arms for it is the arms that can be used to protect life or a way of life.
It is painfully obvious you really do not understand what a right is.
Now where have I heard something similar to that "might makes right" thing? Oh yeah...
Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung, 5
5. WAR AND PEACE
-snip-
Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
"Problems of War and Strategy" (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 224.
-snip-
And you would help the government have more political power by supporting allowing the government to be in control of what methods of "keeping" arms are allowed on the free market.
Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And as far as your remark that I am hiding behind the pretense of being civil.....I am sure those who are reading all of the posts involved in this discussion you and I are having can easily see who has resorted to words the site censures and who has resorted to insults... and who has not.
Appeal to Popularity fallacy. You commit that one often.
I'm not appealing to anything.. I am merely pointing out that anyone reading this discussion can make up their own minds as to who is being civil or not simply by reading the posts.
