Guns

[accelafine]

It's very elegant actually. Different 'from' i.e. away 'from' something, and similar 'to' i.e. 'towards' something. But unfortunately that doesn't take into account the bizarre 'than' that Americans have come up with to be as obnoxious and anti-intelligence and beauty as possible.

[accelafine]

However, "different from" is preferrable, although "than" is acceptable in American English, a language in which we actually pronounce the letter "r" at the end of words.

If you must pronounce it, it should be in the middle.

I didn't write that, dickhead. All these years and you still pretend to not know how to use the quote function.

[accelafine]

Neither is it ungrammatical,

[Harbal]

However, "different from" is preferrable, although "than" is acceptable in American English, a language in which we actually pronounce the letter "r" at the end of words.

If you must pronounce it, it should be in the middle.

I didn't write that, dickhead.

Apologies, and thanks for being so understanding about it.

[accelafine]

If you must pronounce it, it should be in the middle.

I didn't write that, dickhead.

Apologies, and thanks for being so understanding about it.

I understand you are a pr**k who used to be quite funny but are now just a pr**k.

[Age]

Well you can't say different 'than' anyway. It's a grammatical abomination (Americans take great pride in those). But hey, who cares? Language is just noises and not something to be taken seriously. I'm sure we can all communicate adequately using our eyes accompanied by grunting sounds.

Since someone just "said" "different than", you clearly CAN say it. Neither is it ungrammatical, since "than" can serve as a preposition. However, "different from" is preferrable, although "than" is acceptable in American English, a language in which we actually pronounce the letter "r" at the end of words.

"Rights" are nothing more or less than obligations on the part of other people.

'Obligations' to who and/or what, exactly?

And, who and/or what, exactly, decides who is 'obligated' to do what, and to who, exactly?

The right to bear arms imposes obligations on the government prohibiting it from outlawing gun ownership.

But, 'we' have already discovered, and concluded, that the government in question here has already failed on that wrongly called 'obligation', by outlawing gun ownership for and to some human beings.

So, what this means is is that that human being made up and changeable written down 'obligation' is, obviously, not being imposed upon that government. So, who, or what, now is going to 'enforce' that government, that imagined 'right' of gun ownership here?

Just because one or more human being write some words down, and then call those words a 'right', this, in itself, obviously does not make 'those words' an, actual, 'right', at all. As this, supposed, 'gun ownership' example has proved so well, and so nicely, here.

What, exactly, these obligations comprise is a matter of much debate.

What, exactly, do you envision that there is to 'debate' here?

Obviously, if some thing does not have to be followed or does not have to be done, then there is no, actual, 'obligation', here.

[Harbal]

I didn't write that, dickhead.

Apologies, and thanks for being so understanding about it.

I understand you are a pr**k who used to be quite funny but are now just a pr**k.

Why do you think that?

[commonsense]

[quote=accelafine post_id=715432 time=1718397268 user_id=

Well you can't say different 'than' anyway. It's a grammatical abomination (Americans take great pride in those). But hey, who cares? Language is just noises and not something to be taken seriously. I'm sure we can all communicate adequately using our eyes accompanied by grunting sounds.

Would “different from” be to your satisfaction?

Not 'my' satisfaction. grunt grunt eyes left eyes right eyes lowered grunt again...and again....
[/quote]

Such a stickler.

[commonsense]

It's very elegant actually. Different 'from' i.e. away 'from' something, and similar 'to' i.e. 'towards' something. But unfortunately that doesn't take into account the bizarre 'than' that Americans have come up with to be as obnoxious and anti-intelligence and beauty as possible.

It’s preferable to use “toward”, but this is more debatable than “than”.

[commonsense]

[quote=accelafine post_id=715432 time=1718397268 user_id=

Well you can't say different 'than' anyway. It's a grammatical abomination (Americans take great pride in those). But hey, who cares? Language is just noises and not something to be taken seriously. I'm sure we can all communicate adequately using our eyes accompanied by grunting sounds.

Would “different from” be to your satisfaction?

Not 'my' satisfaction. grunt grunt eyes left eyes right eyes lowered grunt again...and again....

Such a stickler.
[/quote]

The quotes above are contraverted. Mea culpa.

[Alexiev]

"Rights" are nothing more or less than obligations on the part of other people.

'Obligations' to who and/or what, exactly?

And, who and/or what, exactly, decides who is 'obligated' to do what, and to who, exactly?

This is simply a general comment about the nature of rights. It's obvious, but some people overlook it. Yhe right to life doesn't protect anyone from cancer, grizzly bears or earthquakes; it imposes an obligation on other people not to kill you. Property rights have no affect on inanimate objects; they simply imposes an obligation pn other people not to take your property without permission. The right to bear arms imposes an obligation on the law makers not to make gun ownership illegal. The exact constitutional obligation is a subject of debate.

Legal rights (obligations) are adjudicated by the courts.

[accelafine]

Would “different from” be to your satisfaction?

Not 'my' satisfaction. grunt grunt eyes left eyes right eyes lowered grunt again...and again....

Such a stickler.

The quotes above are contraverted. Mea culpa.
[/quote]

I think you mean 'controverted' and it's completely the wrong word anyway. Perhaps you mean 'inverted'. I didn't realise the 'quote' function was so intellectually challenging.

[Age]

"Rights" are nothing more or less than obligations on the part of other people.

'Obligations' to who and/or what, exactly?

And, who and/or what, exactly, decides who is 'obligated' to do what, and to who, exactly?

This is simply a general comment about the nature of rights. It's obvious, but some people overlook it. Yhe right to life doesn't protect anyone from cancer, grizzly bears or earthquakes; it imposes an obligation on other people not to kill you.

Even the human being made up presumption, belief, and "rule", that 'you have a right to life', does not even protect you human beings, from you human beings, "yourselves".

Which just shows how more stupid, ridiculous, clueless, and illogical human beings, really, used to be, back in the 'olden days', when this was being written .

Property rights have no affect on inanimate objects; they simply imposes an obligation pn other people not to take your property without permission. The right to bear arms imposes an obligation on the law makers not to make gun ownership illegal. The exact constitutional obligation is a subject of debate.

But, there is nothing to 'debate' here. Obviously, the one and only government in question here makes it illegal for some people to have gun ownership.

So, there is no, actual, 'right' at all here.

It would be like trying to argue that the "citizens", of that country, have a 'right' to wear, or not wear, whatever they like. Obviously, no such 'right', actually, exists.

All of the human beings, in that country, are, really, just "sub servants" to Falsehoods, and a very, very misleading government, which is run and controlled by a few, only

Legal rights (obligations) are adjudicated by the courts.

And, those so-called 'legal rights' are continually taken away, by not just the courts but by the ones who make up and decide 'the rules', for you "sub servients".

[Gary Childress]

Then what does 'guaranteed' mean?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/guarantee

(among others) to promise to do something; to promise something will happen
guarantee something - Basic human rights, including freedom of speech, are now guaranteed.

-Imp

What's the licence for?

I believe most states don't require a license for sporting guns (hunting rifles and shotguns or what are sometimes called "long arms"). Some states have special requirements for being eligible for purchasing pistols or rifles with pistol grips and some don't. I think most states do require a license for concealed carry of a firearm in public places and there is also a license required for owning fully automatic weapons.

There's some variation from state to state as to how to acquire firearms. Mostly, the idea is to keep firearms out of the hands of people who might use them inappropriately. So convicted felons and mentally ill people like myself are generally prevented from having access to them. For the record, I'm in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill.

[Alexiev]

'Obligations' to who and/or what, exactly?

And, who and/or what, exactly, decides who is 'obligated' to do what, and to who, exactly?

This is simply a general comment about the nature of rights. It's obvious, but some people overlook it. Yhe right to life doesn't protect anyone from cancer, grizzly bears or earthquakes; it imposes an obligation on other people not to kill you.

Even the human being made up presumption, belief, and "rule", that 'you have a right to life', does not even protect you human beings, from you human beings, "yourselves".

Which just shows how more stupid, ridiculous, clueless, and illogical human beings, really, used to be, back in the 'olden days', when this was being written .

Property rights have no affect on inanimate objects; they simply imposes an obligation pn other people not to take your property without permission. The right to bear arms imposes an obligation on the law makers not to make gun ownership illegal. The exact constitutional obligation is a subject of debate.

But, there is nothing to 'debate' here. Obviously, the one and only government in question here makes it illegal for some people to have gun ownership.

So, there is no, actual, 'right' at all here.

It would be like trying to argue that the "citizens", of that country, have a 'right' to wear, or not wear, whatever they like. Obviously, no such 'right', actually, exists.

All of the human beings, in that country, are, really, just "sub servants" to Falsehoods, and a very, very misleading government, which is run and controlled by a few, only

Legal rights (obligations) are adjudicated by the courts.

And, those so-called 'legal rights' are continually taken away, by not just the courts but by the ones who make up and decide 'the rules', for you "sub servients".

Ok. Property rights are not absolute either. There are taxes, easements, zoning regulations, etc. That doesn't mean property rights are non-existant.

Have a good day.