• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The right of the individual is more important then the right of the state.

Babykat

Babykat

Active member
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
443
Reaction score
67
Location
USA, Alabama
Gender
Female
First off this is my personal opinion I knew what the laws our currently and that’s not what I’m debating. I’m saying we should go back to the way it was before and limit what laws our government can make stop them from infringe on the individuals rights. I am also laying out the only way I see it working. I don’t understand how we got it so backwards. When we founded this country it was the individuals rights before the states rights and the states rights before the countries rights. Now it is the countries rights before the states rights and the states rights before the individuals rights. If the individual comes first then laws that would infringe on his or her rights wouldn’t stand. So if you wanted to own full auto guns it’s your right. You want to change your gender it’s your right. You don’t want to make a wedding cake in your own business for a gay marriage it’s your right. You want to marry someone of the same sex it’s your right. I think if we stopped letting our government infringe on the individuals rights we would be much better off. But we have to accept that we are not going to agree with or even be able to stand what someone else is going to do with their rights. Right now we are divided into to groups. One group wants to take away rights from gun toting church going Christian and the other group wants to take away rights from gender swapping same sex marring hippies. But the only reason anyone support either of these parties isn’t because they want to see others loss rights. It’s because they don’t want to loss rights. If we all stood up together in defense of everyone’s rights whether we like them or not we could stop it. We could restore our country back to what made our ancestors want to come here. The freedom to choose what is best for you and your family. The freedom to choose how you want to live. But that will never happen as long as we let these politicians take rights away from people. Let me define an individual right. It’s a right that when a person chooses to enact it doesn’t have any direct effect on you. You may not like gay marriage but it doesn’t hurt. You may not like gun ownership but it doesn’t hurt you. And if someone refuses to serve you in a business they own it doesn’t hurt you. Someone else will be more than glade to take your money and a business that refuses to serve someone based on prejudice want last long. I see it from both sides I support gay rights although I’m not gay. I support gun rights and I own lots of guns. Anytime a question about a new law comes up I ask myself if someone does this is it going to hurt me. If the answer is no then I support that right. It’s just that simple. We need to stop letting our believes dictate what rights we support. We need to stop letting our emotions dictate what rights we support.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Babykat said:
First off this is my personal opinion I knew what the laws our currently and that’s not what I’m debating. I’m saying we should go back to the way it was before and limit what laws our government can make stop them from infringe on the individuals rights. I am also laying out the only way I see it working. I don’t understand how we got it so backwards. When we founded this country it was the individuals rights before the states rights and the states rights before the countries rights. Now it is the countries rights before the states rights and the states rights before the individuals rights. If the individual comes first then laws that would infringe on his or her rights wouldn’t stand. So if you wanted to own full auto guns it’s your right. You want to change your gender it’s your right. You don’t want to make a wedding cake in your own business for a gay marriage it’s your right. You want to marry someone of the same sex it’s your right. I think if we stopped letting our government infringe on the individuals rights we would be much better off. But we have to accept that we are not going to agree with or even be able to stand what someone else is going to do with their rights. Right now we are divided into to groups. One group wants to take away rights from gun toting church going Christian and the other group wants to take away rights from gender swapping same sex marring hippies. But the only reason anyone support either of these parties isn’t because they want to see others loss rights. It’s because they don’t want to loss rights. If we all stood up together in defense of everyone’s rights whether we like them or not we could stop it. We could restore our country back to what made our ancestors want to come here. The freedom to choose what is best for you and your family. The freedom to choose how you want to live. But that will never happen as long as we let these politicians take rights away from people. Let me define an individual right. It’s a right that when a person chooses to enact it doesn’t have any direct effect on you. You may not like gay marriage but it doesn’t hurt. You may not like gun ownership but it doesn’t hurt you. And if someone refuses to serve you in a business they own it doesn’t hurt you. Someone else will be more than glade to take your money and a business that refuses to serve someone based on prejudice want last long. I see it from both sides I support gay rights although I’m not gay. I support gun rights and I own lots of guns. Anytime a question about a new law comes up I ask myself if someone does this is it going to hurt me. If the answer is no then I support that right. It’s just that simple. We need to stop letting our believes dictate what rights we support. We need to stop letting our emotions dictate what rights we support.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Individual rights of gun ownership has overshadowed the rights of people shopping at Walmart and the loss of those rights cost those people their lives.
 
Paragraphs are good!
 
HumblePi said:
Individual rights of gun ownership has overshadowed the rights of people shopping at Walmart and the loss of those rights cost those people their lives.
Click to expand...

...And yet the fact that the locale forbid anyone who owned a gun from being present armed, or at the very least should have provided armed security or police, stopped anyone who could have prevented the whole incident from happening.

The shooter made the point in his manifesto. He targeted a place he KNEW no one else would be armed at. That if there was the possibility of an armed Texan there, he would never have chosen that locale.

This is what almost every mass shooter has done, selected a "soft target" where they knew they faced victims and not defenders.
 
Captain Adverse said:
...And yet the fact that the locale forbid anyone who owned a gun from being present armed, or at the very least should have provided armed security or police, stopped anyone who could have prevented the whole incident from happening.

The shooter made the point in his manifesto. He targeted a place he KNEW no one else would be armed at. That if there was the possibility of an armed Texan there, he would never have chosen that locale.

This is what almost every mass shooter has done, selected a "soft target" where they knew they faced victims and not defenders.
Click to expand...

The terrorist was within his legal right to be open-carrying a weapon. Walmart was absolutely a soft target.
 
HumblePi said:
The terrorist was within his legal right to be open-carrying a weapon. Walmart was absolutely a soft target.
Click to expand...

No, he was not within his rights. The Wal-Mart location is semi-private property. The owner has the right to establish certain "rules" of decorum. You have the choice to obey those rules and enter the property, or go elsewhere.

Just as YOU have the right to decide who and what can come into your home. I can agree and follow your rules to enter, or I can stand on my rights...and visit elsewhere. :shrug:
 
Captain Adverse said:
...And yet the fact that the locale forbid anyone who owned a gun from being present armed, or at the very least should have provided armed security or police, stopped anyone who could have prevented the whole incident from happening.

The shooter made the point in his manifesto. He targeted a place he KNEW no one else would be armed at. That if there was the possibility of an armed Texan there, he would never have chosen that locale.

This is what almost every mass shooter has done, selected a "soft target" where they knew they faced victims and not defenders.
Click to expand...



I have no idea what you're talking about. El Paso has more guns than people. Whatever the "locale" forbiddance, which I doubt, there are probably as high a percentage of LEO in El Paso as anywhere else in the US who ARE carrying firearms. What are you saying?
 
Captain Adverse said:
...And yet the fact that the locale forbid anyone who owned a gun from being present armed, or at the very least should have provided armed security or police, stopped anyone who could have prevented the whole incident from happening.

The shooter made the point in his manifesto. He targeted a place he KNEW no one else would be armed at. That if there was the possibility of an armed Texan there, he would never have chosen that locale.

This is what almost every mass shooter has done, selected a "soft target" where they knew they faced victims and not defenders.
Click to expand...


You are opining that this perpetrator couldn’t find a ‘soft target’ closer than ten hours away? That’s a reach.
 
bluesmoke said:
I have no idea what you're talking about. El Paso has more guns than people. Whatever the "locale" forbiddance, which I doubt, there are probably as high a percentage of LEO in El Paso as anywhere else in the US who ARE carrying firearms. What are you saying?
Click to expand...

If you are going to discuss something it might be good to have some knowledge of the situation. Did you read the reports? The Mall had a "no guns" rule. Apparently there were no police in there at the time either. Texas law allows businesses to forbid customers from carrying a firearm on their premises.

What happened when the police showed up? He surrendered.
 
Babykat said:
I don’t understand how we got it so backwards.
Click to expand...

Time is change. They are one in the same.

It is now 2019.

We did not get it backwards at all. The template given us was left flexible to accommodate the changes time brings and we have.

I hope you now understand.

BTW, humans are emotional messes and you will never be able to get emotion out of the human.
 
Rexedgar said:
You are opining that this perpetrator couldn’t find a ‘soft target’ closer than ten hours away? That’s a reach.
Click to expand...

I am opining that he selected a soft target with LOTS of victims of the kind he wanted to target. Or did you think it was a "random" choice?

Since when has distance mattered to a mass shooter? Near is usually a personal target, like the boys in Oklahoma who shot up their own school. Where was the guy who shot up the Las Vegas festival from? In Mesquite NV where he lived, which was 80 miles from the site of the Las Vegas Harvest Festival. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
HumblePi said:
Individual rights of gun ownership has overshadowed the rights of people shopping at Walmart and the loss of those rights cost those people their lives.
Click to expand...

Nonsense - does the right of every male to carry a concealed penis cause rape? Does having the ability to make a fist at will cause punching? Having the right to possess a tool is not permission to commit a crime with it.
 
Rexedgar said:
You are opining that this perpetrator couldn’t find a ‘soft target’ closer than ten hours away? That’s a reach.
Click to expand...

Two reasons to choose the El Paso Walmart rather than the closest Walmart: 1) there are more "Mexicans" (80%?) in El Paso and 2) he posted his "manifesto" (an hour?) in advance of the shooting and did not want to be found (and stopped) before his mass shooting spree was completed.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Two reasons to choose the El Paso Walmart rather than the closest Walmart: 1) there are more "Mexicans" (80%?) in El Paso and 2) he posted his "manifesto" (an hour?) in advance of the shooting and did not want to be found (and stopped) before his mass shooting spree was completed.
Click to expand...


Given the shooter’s home area, he must have hit “send” in the parking lot. This brings up the question; who monitors social media and what kind of a job can that be, to sit in front of a screen and monitor social media for an entire shift?

According to what I have read, the shooter expected to die; I read he gave up w/o a struggle. So many questions......

I have to believe that there were suitable targets and the proper targets closer than ten hours drive....
 
Rexedgar said:
Paragraphs are good!
Click to expand...



So is short syntax. Which Hemingway was known for. Though he once had a 424 word sentence. Traversed two pages. The average for novels is 250-300 words per page. A sentence completes a thought. A paragraph completes an idea. The shorter the sentences, the more words it takes to complete an idea. At least, that's what I've been told.
 
Last edited:
noonereal said:
Time is change. They are one in the same.

It is now 2019.

We did not get it backwards at all. The template given us was left flexible to accommodate the changes time brings and we have.

I hope you now understand.

BTW, humans are emotional messes and you will never be able to get emotion out of the human.
Click to expand...

So you would be happy with no individual rights. We all just do as we are told by our government and nothing else. Some ideas are universal. The don’t fade with time. Is the idea that living inside a shelter faded with time. Has the idea that murder, theft, and rape are wrong faded with time. Has the idea that parents should be responsible and take care of their children faded with time. It has changed. Now what a parent is has changed. Now there are coparents, trans parents, homosexual parents. How we take care of our children has changed. None of that is bad. But the idea that parents should take care of their children is as old as time and still today no society has ever willing giving up all their children to the state. Some may do it. But as a whole we don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rexedgar said:
Given the shooter’s home area, he must have hit “send” in the parking lot. This brings up the question; who monitors social media and what kind of a job can that be, to sit in front of a screen and monitor social media for an entire shift?

According to what I have read, the shooter expected to die; I read he gave up w/o a struggle. So many questions......

I have to believe that there were suitable targets and the proper targets closer than ten hours drive....
Click to expand...

So what? He was the master planner of his killing spree plot and chose El Paso - you, of course, are free to do your mass shooting much closer to your home.
 
Captain Adverse said:
If you are going to discuss something it might be good to have some knowledge of the situation. Did you read the reports? The Mall had a "no guns" rule. Apparently there were no police in there at the time either. Texas law allows businesses to forbid customers from carrying a firearm on their premises.

What happened when the police showed up? He surrendered.
Click to expand...

I have been trying to find more information on the LEO response. From what I have read (so far) the 911 call was at 10:39 and (multiple?) police arrived at the Walmart location at 10:45 (a 6 minute response time to an "active shooter" event is not bad) but the shooting lasted (about) 20 minutes - meaning that the shooting continued for (about) 14 minutes after police had arrived at the Walmart. During that 14 minutes after police were at the scene how many more rounds were fired by the mass shooter, how many people (already) shot bled out and why were no shots fired by police at the "active shooter"?
 
HumblePi said:
Individual rights of gun ownership has overshadowed the rights of people shopping at Walmart and the loss of those rights cost those people their lives.
Click to expand...

First this wasn’t primarily gun ownership it’s about individual rights. But if you want to debate gun ownership I will oblige. Your post is your believe. Like it’s my belief that if I had been there and I would have been armed. He wouldn’t have got to kill as many people. Mass violence has exited since the dawn of time. Think about in the last 80 years there has been less war then anytime before. Yes there is still and but before you had constant war between large nations. The borders of countries where constantly changing. By the early 1900 we had advanced in technology to the point where mass war was possible and we went at it. In less than 40 years we had 2 wars where ever powerful nation was involved. What stopped that. It wasn’t taking weapons away. It was Mutually assured destruction that stopped powerful nations from going to war. You want to stop mass shooting make sure everyone is armed and trained how to defend themselves. Now I respect your right to not want a gun and would never force you to carry one. But guns aren’t the problem. It’s that these people aren’t afraid of other people. They believe they can do whatever they want and no one can stop them. Just like a powerful nation before mutual destruction. If you take away guns these people will still find a way to kill and it will probably still be with a gun. There will just be fewer people to stop them. Plus they do it mostly for attention. Their moment in the spot light. I promised you if my goal was to kill a bunch of people. I could do it with out a gun and probably never get caught. Their goal isn’t to kill its to be famous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Babykat said:
So you would be happy with no individual rights. We all just do as we are told by our government and nothing else. Some ideas are universal. The don’t fade with time. Is the idea that living inside a shelter faded with time. Has the idea that murder, theft, and rape are wrong faded with time. Has the idea that parents should be responsible and take care of their children faded with time. It has changed. Now what a parent is has changed. Now there are coparents, trans parents, homosexual parents. How we take care of our children has changed. None of that is bad. But the idea that parents should take care of their children is as old as time and still today no society has ever willing giving up all their children to the state. Some may do it. But as a whole we don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

WTF does this have to do with anything?

Please don't answer.
 
Babykat said:
You may not like gun ownership but it doesn’t hurt you.
Click to expand...


First of all - your post was awful. Not so much the content (most of it anyway), but the GINORMOUS BLOCK OF TEXT :no:


Second - how the F can you post the part I quoted after the weekend we just went through?
 
It depends on whether an individual wants to remain a member of that state.

Society's come into play to.

Whatever rights you have were granted by the state.
 
Captain Adverse said:
If you are going to discuss something it might be good to have some knowledge of the situation. Did you read the reports? The Mall had a "no guns" rule. Apparently there were no police in there at the time either. Texas law allows businesses to forbid customers from carrying a firearm on their premises.

What happened when the police showed up? He surrendered.
Click to expand...



You're the one that made the claim. The burden of proof is on you. Walmart was the location of the shootings, not "the mall". All Walmart stores allow guns to be carried into stores and are not posted, that I know of. But that's not for me to prove. It's your post and your claim and you have to provide the evidence to support what you say or your claim is unfounded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom