Disarming America

Neither are they alleviated

That's a big if.

And you said you admit when you are wrong... LOL

LOL... sure

Er, some are. Especially since the biggest bullies I came across were some of the teachers and administrators.
But that's not really the issue here.

Reall?I don't remember all this transgender in my school or you'res if your being honest.

The problem is we've reverted back to letting gender/race/etc. Define people, rather than it being a trait that they have. We've elevated gender to be more important and defining than what people actually do. For many it should be irrelevant. If I grew up in today's culture, I would probably define myself as male (even though I'm biologically female) because I reject most traditional feminine things and stereotypes. However I grew up in a time where the message was you can do and be whatever, regardless of your gender.
We've gone back to shoving everyone into a box. We just now let them switch boxes.

Transgender people existed back then. They just couldn't be open about who they were

We are the only country that provides Constitutional protection of the Human Right to protect oneself with a gun.

Again, you have missed the point of the meme;
registration and licensing are an essential precursor to denying otherwise law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves with a weapon that at least evens the odds.
Also, blaming school shootings on guns is ridiculous on its face.

Actually it's a constitutional right to get conscripted into service to protect the state.
Other countries weren't flat assed broke when they suddenly came into being, so they had a standing army of some sort. The nascent USA kicked out the army it previously had, and couldn't afford to even make money, let alone employ people in a professional military. So they had to make due and conscript militia as needed. For free. And they had to supply their own arms to boot.

Just got to ask about your take of the user SURLYKONG 69

IT WAS A COMMUNITY MOD HOW WOULD YOU RATE HIM

2 outta ten. He's too dang fat.

You don't say
That's interesting

I'm now under 2k.

That's good
But your still a LARD BUTT

I'm still imgflip's fattest monkee.

If the Constitution is not about human rights, then what rights is it about.

but you said this, "We are the only country that provides Constitutional protection of the Human Right to protect oneself with a gun." Specifically.

You said that the US is the only country that provides 1) constitutional protections for Human Rights and 2) with guns.

Because those 2 things are clearly false. Other countries enshrine Human Rights in their governing documents. And the US Constitution sure doesn't explicitly tie the protection of Human Rights to a gun.

The only time the US Constitution mentions gun ownership is in connection to being in a regulated militia. There is nothing about human rights.

"And the US Constitution sure doesn't explicitly tie the protection of Human Rights to a gun."

Sure it does; in the 2nd

Do you concede;
there are such things as human rights and
one of those rights is a right to life and
the coincident right to defend oneself against an attack on their right to life
with a weapon that equals the odds or

would you have the people defending themselves with baseball bats against bad guys who will always have automatic weapons with detachable magazines

Concede?

You're cute.

Concede implies that I don't think there are Human Rights.

And that's clearly false.

So. No.

But let's refocus: you claimed that 1) only country that provides Constitutional protection of the Human Right and 2) those rights were explicitly tied to guns.

Both are false.

So, in your effort to avoid answering legitimate questions you want to divert to a discussion of the word concede. Concede, btw, means to admit that something is true; not to admit that you ever believed that it wasn't

btw, name a country that has a Constitution that recognizes and protects human rights. Nowhere did I express or imply that guns were tied to human rights; they are merely a convenient means of protecting them.

TLDR

He actually answered you question. You just didn’t like the answer.

You don't know wht Tldr means do you?

Yes. It’s an admission you’re too ignorant to read and thus are conceding an argument through forfeit.

A conservative takes personal responsibility. Either read it or don’t and if you don’t, then don’t bother to reply…

Unless you want to look stupid or willfully ignorant.

Asking someone to concede that human rights exist is a cute rhetorical self-congratulations. It's not an attempt to avoid answering.

And name a country?

Off the top of my head without a Google search (from memory)?

Canada and Sweden.

You did specifically tie gun ownership and human rights with this: We are the only country that provides Constitutional protection of the Human Right to protect oneself with a gun.

Does the US Constitution enshrine human rights within the governing document? yes (imprefectly, of course, there was that legalizing slavery thing and women not being able to vote, etc).

Does the US Constitution specifically talk about gun ownership? Yes.

Does it tie that gun ownership to the responsibility to defend human rights? Not at all.

Certainly not in the "shall not be infringed" interpretation put forward by the NRA. Gun ownership is independent. It exists in and of itself.

However. If you tied ownership to the 'well-regulated militia' portion of the 2A, then you could say that gun ownership is tied to human rights. Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

So, if you wanna argue that being in a well-regulated militia is necessary to protecting human rights (and thus being armed)... okay.

Let's try that. I like the idea of well-regulated. It lets normal sane people have guns. And it provides a system to make sure crazy f**kheads don't get them.

The 2d A is part of the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution.

Formally codified as the Bill of RIGHTS.

Called for by the States in order to insure the rights of the PEOPLE.

The operative clause states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You mistakenly give precedence to the subordinate clause.

Is English your first language? Just asking.

Hey, since you're reading the 2A, point to the part that specifically and explicitly ties the defense of human rights to gun ownership.

Go on.

Here goes my time out.

Obtuse
Blunt
Dull
Willingly no less!

Only in England and New York do they not consider self defense snd defense of life a human right.

You like Obama seem to consider the Bill of RIGHTS to be an impediment.

Ad homenims and insults are not a good sign of a mature debate.

If you wish to describe something, try the argument rather than the person making it.

Here:

imgflip.com/i/7gq84o?nerp=1680726190#com24851185

Right of the people?

Are you a people? Or some other construct?

People are human last time I checked. Peoples rights would of necessity be human rights.

I'm not arguing that citizens of the United States don't have a right to own a gun.

The 2A clearly says they do.

But let me repeat this for you AGAIN:

Show me where it says owning a gun is necessary for the defense of human rights.

Unless you can point to specific language- that's you adding to the text of the Constitution.

That's you adding meaning.

Which, as I recall, is against that "originalist" view.

To say the second amendment isn’t a human right outlined in the Bill of Rights because that specific amendment does not call it a human right is quite pedantic.

It is pretty obvious that the intent of the Bill of Rights was to assign basic protections against the government to the average citizen so that their basic human rights would not be taken.

True, one could interpret it in other ways but I fail to see another perspective.

Don’t get me wrong, quite right that gun advocates lean too heavily on the “shall not be infringed part”; and the other side, even moderates, consider the “well-regulated” part to be far too often ignored.

They weren't saying that a right to own a gun was a human right.

Specifically, they said that the reason for the 2nd amendment is to defend those rights with guns.

And that's no where in the Constitution.

That is true.

And their stubbornness to admit that proves they care little about facts.

And thus no ability to defend themselves against some asshole.who does have a gun. Or are you one of those mind numbingly naive people who believe bag guys won't have guns?

https://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm