h-holy shit..... I-I can't believe it.... Sup Forums has been eternally BTFO.... it's fucking OVER.
Sup Forums btfo
Do you get your guns for free? No, why should you get healthcare for free then
My health insurance is cheaper than my guns and shooting habits.
...
It really made me think
The difference is that I don't have to pay for your "Assault weapon" (??), but in your case I would have to pay for your medical bills.
First Post, Best Post.
I think CHOICE in healthcare is a human right
The right to self defense is a human right. When a corrupt government has "Assult Rifles" we need to be able to match that.
Also 1/10 you socialist shill
...
You have a right to buy either.
You DON'T have a right to have either given to you at someone else's expense.
>How is this so hard to comprehend?
You should really shut the fuck up before I reign down my Canadian wrath upon you so bad that your PARENTS will need to pay for YOUR medical bills.
Stupid weak Americuck.
>Human right = Constitutional Right
>?
>Assault Weapons
>Assault
really few states actually allow real assault weaponry
2/10 bait
for reasons you will never understand
which is imbecilic
It's a right in the constitution to own a fire arm.
Healthcare is not a right. It's a privilege
B T F O
I don't understand what's wrong with the concept of better regulations on health insurance to make it more affordable to the average person and to stop pushing the jew agenda of extending patents on medicines for longer periods of time.
>Healthcare is not a right. It's a privilege
subjective
>It's a right in the constitution
that is merely the subjective assessment of those who wrote it
"assault weapon" is a purely political term meaning "scary looking gun" so it could really be anything that pushes the anti gun agenda.
Ability to own firearms, a constitutional right.
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act- a legislative act that mandates that anyone with or without insurance will be seen at an emergency room.
Obeezycare- a cluster fuck of private insurance collusion with government that raises costs, creates doctor shortages, mandates that every citizen buy health insurance from a private entity or face a fine, etc.
get fukked commie
u wot mate? Why should taxpayer pay for you fat unhealthy fucks?
>Healthcare is not a right. It's a privilege
>subjective
>subjective
You're conflating negative rights (ie. rights), with positive rights (ie. privileges).
It's not subjective at all, if you have to force someone else to pay for it, it's not a right.
No one's paying for other people's rifles
I don't disagree with you, but please for fuck sake, stop posting replies to these fucking Reddit trolls. DON'T EVEN SAGE THEM. LET THEM DIE FAST.
You too, stop. If no one replies, it dies.
I also have noticed that anti gun swj have been pushing the term "assault" as the ultimate death machine, but "assault weapon" is a real term, which began with the Sturmgewehr 44, stg 44
>You're conflating negative rights (ie. rights), with positive rights (ie. privileges).
ive heard all of that
still subjective
>should
subjective
>Increased regulations make things more affordable.
You are economically illiterate, that's why you don't understand.
Cold hard cash is not subjective pedro, if someone else is paying for it, it's not a right.
didnt say that cold hard cash is subjective
that it is a right or not, or right or wrong or not, is subjective
I cannot stand this constant, low effort, high volume shilling any more. Any OP with an occupy democrats maymay with the phrase Sup Forums btfo should be an auto fucking ban.
>that it is a right or not, or right or wrong or not, is subjective
Not an argument.
its not necessarily shilling
>not an argument
also subjective
and also not an argument
You're thinking of assault rifles, which is a subset of rifles.
"Assault weapons" are defined by an arbitrary set of cosmetic features.
occupy mental illness
subjective necessary arbitrary
prove me wrong
Only one of things requires the resources of others.
It is literally impossible for healthcare to be a right in the same sense than gun ownership can be, becasue only one of these rights necessitates depriving others of their time, resources or money.
Pretty basic shit leaf.
the set of features is incidental
assault rifles are automatic rifles that are to be used in incursions/offensive actions/advances
Wtf I hate America now
>self-defense should not be a human right
>but being able to force another human to take care of you should be
you mean "necessarily"?
and no, THAT IT IS subjective, is objective
i.e. there is nothing of the matter entirely except what any person thinks/says
>>but being able to force another human to take care of you should be
same case against public education
Public education isn't a right though.
Just because something is granted to people by the government does not make it a 'right'.
Why don't leftist understand what rights are? Its not that hard.
Pro tip: Look up negative and positive rights
>Public education isn't a right though.
depends on who you ask
>Just because something is granted to people by the government does not make it a 'right'.
subjective
as are all "rights"
I wish there was a way for Sup Forums to permanently autob& anyone posting images with "occupy democrats" at the bottom
what rights are as-you-define-them you mean
they could say the same about you
Rights are not a matter of opinion you retard. They are very specific legal concepts.
and who came up with those concepts?
humans.
dumbass.
Assault Rifle is defined as a select-fire rifle chambered for an intermediate cartridge.
"Assault weapons" are defined by a lengthy list of features (such as a telescoping butt stock, pistol grip, bayonet lug etc) combined together on a semi-automatic rifle.
If you think owning a semi complex device built for defense is the same as acquiring a service that has to deal with a wide range of very expensive diseases at the cost of every taxpayers money whether they use it or not or whether the person even pays taxes or not, stretching an already overworked understaffed medical sector even further with no guaranteed results, you're what's wrong with America.
You should be allowed to have both.
And you should pay for both.
/thread
yes, that is one definition
Some of these really make you think
yes
and if all air on earth was so bad you had to pay for oxygen, then newborns with no one to pay for them to breathe must suffocate
sorry, thats life :(
If someone else has to provide it for you, it isn't a right.
Humans with authority drawn from implied threat of force. Not random idiots on the internet.
If you want to go and start a movement to abolish our legal system, go right ahead.
Yeah, but only about rope.
Assault weapons. Muh AR-15
Fuck those idiots.i have comprehensive universal healhcare here on Aus. You know what I NEED? The right to defend myself from home invaders. That would be nice. I'd trade the healthcare just to be able to legally stop assholes with knives and bats coming to my house.
I would trade healthcare for castle law and 2nd ammendment no problems.
That is the legal definition created by AWB legislation.
Denying someone the right to self-defense, may lead to them being robbed, raped, killed, tortured, etc.
"Free" healthcare is a concept which relies on high taxes. Taxes are arguably a form of theft.
Love how the dems act like this is just so clear cut and non-negotiable. They are wrong on both issues.
thats the subjection
depends on who you ask, and according to their defintion of "right", etc
>Humans with authority
>authority
so?
and according to who?
what they print as "laws" means no more than what i might write on a napkin on a whim
> drawn from implied threat of force.
this has no effect, necessarily, on what they say/declare/write in any way
>If you want to go and start a movement to abolish our legal system, go right ahead.
false dilemma
or are laws and rights only subjective if someone has a nice suit and nice official looking buildings and goons with guns and nice uniforms and its all "legitimate" as far as they, and many, are concerned?
yes, again, one definition
You mean how newborns with no one to buy food for them starve?
Don't be such a fagdiot.
>You mean how newborns with no one to buy food for them starve?
that too
if you are ok with that, that is up to you
kek, always love seeing this picture
I'll pay for a niggers healthcare when the government puts tax bux towards my gun collection.
You have the right to both, what you don't have the right to do is take money from me to pay for either.
Buy it yourself you fucking socialist twat, i have my own bills to pay
>this has no effect, necessarily, on what they say/declare/write in any way
Proof?
>implying anyone has a choice, if they pass such legislation
>thats the subjection
No, it's not.
A 'right' is something that you have, and has to be taken away by force.
An 'entitlement' is something that you don't have, and has to be provided to you by force.
Just because leftists like to play games with language, doesn't mean you have to go along with their bullshit.
You have no right too medical tools and professionals. In the state of the world keeping you alive without any contribution gives worse care to the people that pay to see a doctor as well as raises the cost.
proof?
me and you both, weigh and value anything anyone declares, ever, whether "law" or opinion, as we choose, based on whatever we wish
law has no value except in the minds of those who believe or disbelieve in it, whether they obey or not, or enforce or not, and how they may engage in either of refrain
Straight from cuckida
>A 'right' is something that you have
according to who?
>An 'entitlement' is something that you don't have, and has to be provided to you by force.
according to who?
> doesn't mean you have to go along with their bullshit.
who has to go along, or not, with whatever anyone says, and what is or is not considered BS is subjective
>water and air not being free
>food not being free if you want to make a living hunting and farming and trapping
lmao look at this faggot
your reading comprehension and meta comprehension, is on par with pavement apes
One is a positive right, the other is a negative right dipshit.
You don't have the right to free assault rifles paid for by the government and nobody suggests you should.
Also, nobody is coming to forcibly take away your healthcare that you paid for with your own money.
There. Refuted.
hahahahahahahahahaha! tough talk coming from a fucking leaf!
>One is a positive right, the other is a negative right dipshit.
so?
>You don't have the right to free assault rifles paid for by the government
says who?
> nobody suggests you should.
some do
>Also, nobody is coming to forcibly take away your healthcare that you paid for with your own money.
maybe, maybe not
not yet anyway perhaps
>There. Refuted.
says you?
Is it true that healthcare still isnt 100% free if you are insuranced in the stupid USA?
How can I be everything wrong with america when I am not american?
>You have the right to defend yourself, but you must purchase it
>You have the right to healthcare, but you must purchase it
Looks like liberals got BTFO once again. Like they always do.
Nothing is free.
>solipsism is an argument
>reality
pick one
there is a large spectrum, at the top, it is often totally paid for by the insurcance
like with senators, etc, trump and so forth
6k+ dollars a month
>law has no value except in the minds of those who believe or disbelieve in it, whether they obey or not, or enforce or not, and how they may engage in either of refrain
lol
Tell yourself that when you are sitting in a courtroom in front a judge.
You sound like one of those retarded sovereign citizens.
You're subjective, everything is subjective. Communication and language is impossible because everything is subjective. Every word in every post in this thread doesn't mean the same thing to me as it does to you. You think we're talking about the philosophy of rights, but this is actually a japanese animation fan forum.
First post best post
If that isn't your definition, you need clarify what your definition is Everytime you use the term because the one I used is the most widely accepted definition.
out of a very very small pool of subjects, everything is subjective
what does and does not constitute and argument is very much subjective
hahaha gotta love the term "assault" weapon.
Any weapon is a weapon, where the fuck did the term """assault""" come from??
The truck used in France killing many people, was that an "assault" Truck???
Read up on the difference between positive and negative rights and come back, burger. Comparing the two is nonsense.
what happend to Sup Forums
80% bullshit threads. at least be creative if you want to shitpost,
Sure is summer in here. You're acting like a literal 11 year old.
>Says who
Doesn't matter who says it, it's what happens. People privately buy guns. Guns are not provided to you by the government.
>Some do
Most don't.
>maybe, maybe not
Give a fucking straight answer
>says you?
You offer no rebuttal, so yeah.
>not understanding the basic concept that rights cannot be given, only taken away.
The scenario which would not be a false equivalence would be if your skin appointment was readily provided until the government steps in to say you can no longer get it.
Also, SHALL
Holy shit what state do I have to move to to get free assault weapons?
>Tell yourself that when you are sitting in a courtroom in front a judge.
appeal to accomplishment
red herring
nice reading comprehension
i've been speaking about the concept and idea and understanding of any given law
not physical enforcement
> Communication and language is impossible
of course not
strawman
>Every word in every post in this thread doesn't mean the same thing to me as it does to you.
now your actually really getting it
>you need clarify what your definition is Everytime you use the term
nah
>of course not
>strawman
That's subjective.
Ban fucking Assault Feminists
i already covered that
> it's what happens.
i was talking about what people think, not what actions transpire
>Guns are not provided to you by the government.
not yet
>Most don't.
so?
>Give a fucking straight answer
if you were clever, that would have been narrow enough of an answer
>You offer no rebuttal, so yeah.
the rebuttal was in the rhetoricism of the question
>That's subjective.
again, you are starting to get it
Did free healthcare get written into the constitution somewhere?
Also everyone has a right to have healthcare... Just like they have a right to have guns... But guns aren't free