maybe we can take it back.  firearms were not regulated or restricted for hundreds of years.  All this gun-phobia and irrationality is relatively recent.

However, in order to make progress, we'd have to have people be honest about their objectives and also be rational.  Honesty and rationality have been entirely missing in the liberal anti-gun agenda.

Good luck with that. The majority of Americans no longer have any positive interaction with firearms anymore. As America becomes more and more urban and suburban, hunting goes away, target shooting becomes more and more difficult to do, more structured and less fun.

The only connection many people have today to guns is, either somebody sticking it in your face to rob you, you deciding you need you need one to keep people from robbing, or killing you and random bullets whizzing around the neighborhood from gang bangers. Not very positive. The utopian fantasy of nobody having guns at all, becomes more and more attractive to many.

And the rifle that won the Revolution. The famous kentucky rifle was accurate because it had a rifled barrel. The standard musket was smooth bore and the ball would quickly go off target.

I thought we were talking about Massachusetts? What does Kentucky have to do with it?

What's the big deal?? He can always print more money. It's pretty cheap to make.

Yeah, a lot of people knew it was a damn lie back then. A lot of people couldn't prove it, but knew the story was rotten. Not a lot anybody could do though, the plan was in motion and there was no stopping it. We were going to transform the Middle East into a thriving, modern democratic region and we would reap the profits later.

Many people knew the plan to transform the Middle East was a really bad one and they said so, but a positive short term future sounds more attractive than a negative long term future, so the experts in the Middle East who actually new a thing or two about Islam and the people living in the region, were drown out. We were warned the Middle East was a tinder box and we were playing with matches, but we ignored, republicans and democrats alike.

The "doom sayers" are all on record. I remember hearing and reading them well back then. The doom sayers were all correct in their analysis. Al Queda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Taliban and countless others, many we don't even know yet, are all result of our meddling. Our Shock and Awe, occupation and continued killing in the region has given these groups power.

I too am guilty as I believed the transformation plan actually might work and voted for Bush the second time as well. I was wrong. I admit it. As a country we need to admit it and adjust our strategy in dealing with the Middle East. Get out and stay out, IMO is the best thing now. Stop thinking we can fix it and that we know best.

natural rights can't be infringed?

Sure, I think so, but I said denied.

I think you have a very, very distorted view of what constitutes a natural right.

And that's quite sad, because your mentality is what is being used by despots, including our government, to deny people of their natural rights.

But wait!! Many here are saying that natural rights can't be denied.

Um...no.


Rights exist beyond the "permission by a group of people".  The people of the DPRK have the right to freedom of speech, even if their government chooses to not recognize that right and works to actively suppress it, it doesn't change the fact that the right exists.

See that's where you're not getting what I'm saying. We, a larger sub set of humans recognize the right to free speech that is being denied to those living in the DPRK, but if the whole world were ruled by the DPRK, then they could say we have no right to free speech and if they have the power to enforce that, it would be so. If a group of rebels had the power to resist their decree, then for those rebels they would have the right to free speech.

Rights just come down to who has the power. Our recognition of the people's right to free speech in the DPRK doesn't actually give it to them. It would take a greater power, us attacking and removing the government of the DPRK to give it to them.

There is a bright line between human and animal.  Genocide is a tragedy but not a slide down a slippery slope.

And in your view, how do those committing genocide typically justify that taking of life to their members? History has shown, that often the rational is that those that are to die, are inferior and therefore not any different than eradicating an invasive species in an animal habitat. Most people find killing very distasteful and so reasoning must be given to get them over the emotional hump and get them to swing the sword, pull the trigger, drop the bomb, set the fire, release the gas, etc.

The good news is, as the world becomes more connected and more educated, a universal right to life for all humans is starting to become more widely recognized and defended.