Summations Only

Am I the only one to see a connection here? As soon as you talk about limiting the right to own a gun, guns lovers get overly defensive (close to paranoia if you ask me), the same attitude that prompt them to be armed in the first place.

Ted Cruz found a purpose for you : cooking bacon

Alternatively you can learn self-defense in any good martial arts school like I did. They can even train you to defend against knives and guns. As a bonus, the student learns respect and confidence.You said multiple times in this thread that guns are the best weapons right now. You seems to forget hand grenades, nuclear weapons, landmines. Why don't you bury landmines in front of your house? Warn the people you know and let the evil strangers die then harvest the ketchup. Yes that's how guns lovers sound to me.

That was an impressively good answer to the question, thanks.

Except for a heavy handicap, I can't see why you couldn't. In that case may I suggest a variety of non-lethal weapons like a taser gun or pepper spray? Landmines are very effective at preventing unwanted intruders in your house. Hand grenades or nuclear weapons are only for the purpose of dissuasion, exactly like your argued earlier. Why not?Seriously now... Don't you see that you're going in circles? You want a gun to defend yourself because people have guns because you want guns?It's like the nuclear race during the cold war.

Too old goes into physical limitation. If you're too old to learn self-defense techniques, you're too old to manipulate a gun. Trust me, I've taught self-defense to women of almost all ages and they were all able to handle me at 6'1 215lbs no problem.You don't have time to learn self-defense? Then you don't have time to train yourself with your gun, I don't want to see you anywhere close to one. That's dangerous thinking there.Lack the desire? Just as I thought that your desire was to be able to defend yourself... By the way, you don't always have your gun but you always have your hands.I also notice that you conveniently avoided the remark about non-lethal weapons. Squirrels and rabbits? Engineers never found a way to prevent that in the last hundreds years... right. And are you really saying that unwanted deaths or injuries don't happen with guns? They happen all the time even when fired by trained people like policemen! Your words : Dissuade the intruders by having grenades and atomic weapons. You really want to go there? RPGs, grenade, flamethrower. All personal weapons, all better than guns in many situations. Ask yourself why it's a better self defense weapon. Isn't it because evil strangers have guns too? Why do they have guns? Probably because you have one!Place yourself in the role of a robber. You enter a house with you gun in hand, just in case. You happen to come face to face with a guy living there. He has a gun, would you shoot? And if he hadn't one? Would you shoot too? The probability of deaths occuring is greater when guns are present on the scene!

If you're in that wheelchair because you're too old and unable to walk, I'm not sure I can trust you with a gun. Just so you know, self defense classes are available in your free time, what a bad excuse seriously!And 16 hours is more than enough to be quite effective with your bare hands. After those 16 hours, use your "free time" to practice... Remember, we weren't only talking about you unless you're too old, in a wheelchair and have a handicap. You rejected it without a shred of an explanation, thanks. Enlightening! You should write books. Another great rebutal, you really went into the important parts of my argument.Why are you evading question Cat Sci?Let me dismiss all your arguments in your fashion : Admit it, you only like guns, that's all. And you know what? You have the natural right to like them.

Again the same pattern, what are you afraid of this time? You're afraid of evil strangers with guns so you want a gun. You're afraid of loosing some freedoms with a more responsable guns regulation. Now you're afraid that thinking might change your views?USA : Land of the fear free!

Oh the irony!Both you and Cat Sci evaded most of my points. Maybe you could start by giving the example if you want people to give you the same respect.

As a woman I'm sure you're familiar with this : The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.The 19th amendment, granting voting right to women.So let me ask you Faith, according to your grammar, does it clearly evokes a right already in existence before the writing of the Constitution?Edited by Bliyaal, : Fixed a typo

You're absolutely right, I was just using her words to make it obvious that it didn't make sense. I don't understand why they're making a great deal about the way it's written when the meaning behind is clear. I guess that's their last resort since they won't answer anything else.

The concept of natural right is meaningless to me.I could play a different word game too! If it's a natural right to have weapons, I would insist on the world natural. A gun doesn't occur naturally. I'm fine with them carrying sticks and stones if they want to as long as they found them on the ground.

First, we're not talking about banning guns, only a better regulation, you know like with cars.Second, how can you compare a gun and a car? One is designed to kill and the other is designed to transport. That should tell you something.It's fun to compare the numbers of deaths but you should compare the number of deaths versus number of usages. How often do you drive a car and for how long? How often do you shoot with a gun?Please try a better argument.

So Tangle was right, a natural right is anything you want it to be.It find it funny that now you're arguing that maybe sometimes mentality changes but when we're saying that the time has come to do some changes you fall back to what you think the original text says.Edited by Bliyaal, : No reason given.

Your argument concerning the 19th amendment is that those who proposed it viewed the women right to vote as a natural right. Obviously their predecessors didn't agree because it was ratified only in 1920. So you're arguing that mentalities change and the constitution should reflect this... except for your love of guns.So... in your words : lol wut?