Guess the IQ

Into the Night said:
Yes. You must purchase your guns using your own money. There is no 'gun welfare' system.
Click to expand...


Poor @christiefan915.

No, Christie, this does not apply to guns in the way the post implies—because the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, not invented as a demand for someone else’s labor or property. The Second Amendment doesn’t require any farmer to grow crops for you, any smith to forge a rifle, or any bureaucrat to redistribute ammunition. It simply says the government cannot infringe your pre-existing ability to acquire and possess arms through voluntary exchange in the market.The post conflates two entirely different categories of “rights”:
  1. Negative rights (like speech, arms, or property): These require only that others (especially the state) refrain from interfering. No one is forced to produce a gun for you. You buy it, trade for it, or make it yourself—using your own labor or resources.
  2. Positive rights (like the socialist “right” to healthcare, housing, or food): These do demand someone else’s labor or property be seized and redistributed. That’s the altruism-by-force the post correctly identifies as unworkable.
The right to arms falls squarely in the first category. It’s not a claim on anyone else’s effort—it’s a restraint on government power. You don’t have a “right” to a free AR-15 any more than you have a “right” to a free printing press. You have the right to acquire either without state prohibition, and to defend your life with the tools you lawfully obtain.Socialism fails because it tries to enforce positive rights through coercion. The right to arms succeeds (where protected) because it demands nothing from your neighbor—only that the state leave you both alone.



 
Diogenes said:
Poor @christiefan915.

No, Christie, this does not apply to guns in the way the post implies—because the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, not invented as a demand for someone else’s labor or property. The Second Amendment doesn’t require any farmer to grow crops for you, any smith to forge a rifle, or any bureaucrat to redistribute ammunition. It simply says the government cannot infringe your pre-existing ability to acquire and possess arms through voluntary exchange in the market.The post conflates two entirely different categories of “rights”:
  1. Negative rights (like speech, arms, or property): These require only that others (especially the state) refrain from interfering. No one is forced to produce a gun for you. You buy it, trade for it, or make it yourself—using your own labor or resources.
  2. Positive rights (like the socialist “right” to healthcare, housing, or food): These do demand someone else’s labor or property be seized and redistributed. That’s the altruism-by-force the post correctly identifies as unworkable.
The right to arms falls squarely in the first category. It’s not a claim on anyone else’s effort—it’s a restraint on government power. You don’t have a “right” to a free AR-15 any more than you have a “right” to a free printing press. You have the right to acquire either without state prohibition, and to defend your life with the tools you lawfully obtain.Socialism fails because it tries to enforce positive rights through coercion. The right to arms succeeds (where protected) because it demands nothing from your neighbor—only that the state leave you both alone.



Click to expand...
He should have phrased his post more clearly. Don't go on a rant about the concept of "rights" and then have his mouthpiece (aka Y O U) jump in with an article that gun "rights" are sacred. "Rights" are a concept created by people and can be changed by people.
 
Diogenes said:
Poor @christiefan915.

No, Christie, this does not apply to guns in the way the post implies
Click to expand...
Yes it does. She is trying to justify welfare. There is no welfare for guns.
Diogenes said:
—because the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution,
Click to expand...
She is talking about welfare for guns.
Diogenes said:
not invented as a demand for someone else’s labor or property.
Click to expand...
This part is correct. You must purchase your own guns. There is no welfare for guns.
Diogenes said:
The Second Amendment doesn’t require any farmer to grow crops for you, any smith to forge a rifle, or any bureaucrat to redistribute ammunition.
Click to expand...
Correct.
Diogenes said:
It simply says the government cannot infringe your pre-existing ability to acquire and possess arms through voluntary exchange in the market.The post conflates two entirely different categories of “rights”:
Click to expand...
Which is not discussing what she is discussing.
Diogenes said:
  1. Negative rights (like speech, arms, or property): These require only that others (especially the state) refrain from interfering. No one is forced to produce a gun for you. You buy it, trade for it, or make it yourself—using your own labor or resources.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a 'negative right'. Otherwise correct. You must buy it, trade for it, or make it yourself. This is NOT part of the 2nd amendment.
Diogenes said:
  1. Positive rights (like the socialist “right” to healthcare, housing, or food): These do demand someone else’s labor or property be seized and redistributed. That’s the altruism-by-force the post correctly identifies as unworkable.
Click to expand...
All rights are 'positive' rights. There is no right to healthcare. There is no right to housing. There is no right to food. There IS the right to obtain these things, however.
Diogenes said:
The right to arms falls squarely in the first category. It’s not a claim on anyone else’s effort—it’s a restraint on government power. You don’t have a “right” to a free AR-15 any more than you have a “right” to a free printing press. You have the right to acquire either without state prohibition, and to defend your life with the tools you lawfully obtain.Socialism fails because it tries to enforce positive rights through coercion. The right to arms succeeds (where protected) because it demands nothing from your neighbor—only that the state leave you both alone.
Click to expand...
Here you get it correctly. This does not involve the 2nd amendment at all.
 
christiefan915 said:
He should have phrased his post more clearly. Don't go on a rant about the concept of "rights" and then have his mouthpiece (aka Y O U) jump in with an article that gun "rights" are sacred. "Rights" are a concept created by people and can be changed by people.
Click to expand...


Yes, Christie, that’s partially relevant—but it’s a descriptive claim, not a normative one, and it doesn’t erase the critical distinction between types of rights.You're correct:
  • All rights are human constructs.
  • Societies can change them (via amendment, revolution, or legislation).
But that doesn’t mean all rights function the same way economically or morally. Let’s apply your point with precision:

Type of RightWhat It RequiresCan It Be Changed?Does It Force Altruism?
Negative (e.g., speech, arms)Only restraint—others must not interfereYes (e.g., repeal 2A)No
Positive (e.g., "right" to healthcare, housing)Active provision—someone must produce and giveYes (e.g., enact UBI)Yes
So yes, people created the Second Amendment—and people could repeal it.
But as long as it exists, it imposes no duty on anyone to arm you. It’s not a claim ticket at the gun factory.The original post attacked positive rights disguised as universal claims.
Saying “rights are made up” doesn’t put guns in that category.
It just means we should be honest about what kind we’re creating—and who pays the bill.Bottom line:
You’re right that rights are mutable.

But not all rights are equal in cost.

Guns? Free to recognize.
“Free” guns for all? That’s where the socialism critique kicks in.
 
christiefan915 said:
He should have phrased his post more clearly. Don't go on a rant about the concept of "rights" and then have his mouthpiece (aka Y O U) jump in with an article that gun "rights" are sacred. "Rights" are a concept created by people and can be changed by people.
Click to expand...
Rights are not created by people. Rights exist inherently.

For example: You have the right to defend yourself using any and all means. You do NOT have the right to attack others.
Even an animal has the right to defend itself using any and all means available to it.

No one created this right. It simply exists, and always has.

You do NOT have the right to steal from others. Socialism is based on theft.

Now, concerning 'gun rights':

The 2nd amendment discusses the right of self defense, It also discusses the right to bear arms by the people. The federal government AND the State governments cannot pass any law that limits or bans any weapon, weapon system, ammunition for it, any accessories for it, or by weapon type. ANY WEAPON IS LEGAL, including ANY SIZE MAGAZINE, or ANY TYPE OF ACTION, or ANY SIZE.

It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any weapon, magazine size, accessory, whether it's 'scary looking' or not, etc. Yes, that includes any type of bomb, projectile weapon, hand weapon, artillery, hand thrown weapon, etc.

NO State has any authority to change that.
NO court has any authority to change that.
Congress does not have any authority to change that.

The 2nd amendment also discusses the self defense of States themselves. They do this by means of a militia, formed within the State, and under the command of the State governor. They can only do this for self defense. They cannot keep a standing army.

The federal government also has the right to self defense. It uses militia (the National Guard), the Army, Navy, Air Force, etc. The federal government is also charged with defending the States. This is why Trump is sending troops to cities to protect ICE agents in the performance of their duty.

YOU support rioting, looting, organized crime, illegal aliens, and insurrection. These are crimes. If a federal officer sees you doing this, you can be arrested and charged with a crime (typically under Title 8).
 
Last edited:
  • The video does not appear to be AI-generated; it shows a real-life scenario of a person reacting to anti-theft barriers in a Dollar Tree store.
  • Dollar Tree has been implementing anti-theft measures, including locking up products, due to rising shoplifting issues, which is a significant trend in retail as of late 2025.
  • The reaction in the video aligns with public sentiment about these measures, as seen in related discussions on platforms like Reddit, where users express frustration over the inconvenience caused by such security measures.
  • The video's authenticity is supported by the presence of metadata and the natural, unedited flow of the footage, which does not exhibit characteristics typical of AI-generated content, such as unnatural movements or inconsistencies in lighting and shadows.


https://twitter.com/x/status/1984800621891903549
View: https://x.com/EBTofTikTok/status/1984800621891903549
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top