Gun control ... actual question

[Que]

I do understand what the concept of a 'right' is - I get that they're not privileges bestowed by anyone. But how is it established that free speech, arming bears, etc are the things that are 'rights' that the government shouldn't infringe on?

Because without the right to speak freely you can't possibly organize any of the rest of it. Without the right to defend yourself and others, what else matters?

Humans denied either of those things will strive to find a way to get them. Prisoners in solitary confinement find ways to communicate. Prisoners in absolute lockdown find ways to create weapons to defend themselves, including ways to murder other people that they justify as preemptively defending themselves.

How can you even question those natural rights when we've got people arguing that people have a natural right to live at the expense of others?

 

[KimGordon67]

Because without the right to speak freely you can't possibly organize any of the rest of it. Without the right to defend yourself and others, what else matters?

Humans denied either of those things will strive to find a way to get them. Prisoners in solitary confinement find ways to communicate. Prisoners in absolute lockdown find ways to create weapons to defend themselves, including ways to murder other people that they justify as preemptively defending themselves.

How can you even question those natural rights when we've got people arguing that people have a natural right to live at the expense of others?

I'm not questioning that they're rights - I'm question that they're natural rights. I'm basically arguing that they're rights because we (whoever 'we' is at any given moment in any given place) agree that they are ... ergo 'we' (probably a different 'we' at a different time than the first 'we') can equally agree that actually they aren't.

 

[Que]

I'm not questioning that they're rights - I'm question that they're natural rights. I'm basically arguing that they're rights because we (whoever 'we' is at any given moment in any given place) agree that they are ... ergo 'we' (probably a different 'we' at a different time than the first 'we') can equally agree that actually they aren't.

No, they are not granted by anyone. This is why people that understand that despise democracy. I don't care if I'm on an island with you and three other people and all four of you agree that I don't get either of those rights.

 

[Que]

Slaves were not allowed to learn to read. Since reading is a thing and books existsl and there's knowledge in books I have an absolute unfettered right to every bit of knowledge in every book I can come across. Making it illegal for slaves to read doesn't negate the fact that they have a natural right to do so.

In the interest of safety prisons will restrict the communications of various people. That does not negate the fact that they have a natural right to communicate with each other.

 

[KimGordon67]

No, they are not granted by anyone. This is why people that understand that despise democracy. I don't care if I'm on an island with you and three other people and all four of you agree that I don't get either of those rights.

Sigh. I don't think I said they were granted by anyone - the notion of rights, as BotBoy rightly points out, is that you have them regardless. I said "I'm basically arguing that they're rights because we (whoever 'we' is at any given moment in any given place) agree that they are ... ergo 'we' (probably a different 'we' at a different time than the first 'we') can equally agree that actually they aren't."
Agreeing that something is a right isn't (quite) the same as bestowing it.

 

[Lancecastor]

[Threats of physical harm against other users are prohibited per our forum guidelines] and are cause for permanent banning.

 

[KimGordon67]

Kg67 needs a good raping.

Her trolling is textbook freshette boring.

Um ... I made this thread. Who am I 'trolling'?

(Hilarious with the rape joke, btw. I'm so glad that you don't feel the need to consider the fact that you might be addressing someone who's actually been raped - good old right to free speech!)

 

[Que]

Sigh. I don't think I said they were granted by anyone - the notion of rights, as BotBoy rightly points out, is that you have them regardless. I said "I'm basically arguing that they're rights because we (whoever 'we' is at any given moment in any given place) agree that they are ... ergo 'we' (probably a different 'we' at a different time than the first 'we') can equally agree that actually they aren't."
Agreeing that something is a right isn't (quite) the same as bestowing it.

You and any community of we that you might want to come up with do not have a right to tell me what my rights are and are not; my rights are those things that I'm willing to defend.

Kg67 needs a good raping.

Her trolling is textbook freshette boring.

Shall "we" put it to a vote?

 

[Que]

Um ... I made this thread. Who am I 'trolling'?

(Hilarious with the rape joke, btw. I'm so glad that you don't feel the need to consider the fact that you might be addressing someone who's actually been raped - good old right to free speech!)

There actually are places where men have decided whether women do or don't have a right not to be raped. It is germaine, even if he was offering it facetiously.

 

[KimGordon67]

You and any community of we that you might want to come up with does not have a right to tell me what my rights are and are not; my rights are those things that I'm willing to defend.



Shall "we" put it to a vote?

So you decide what are 'rights'? That's not really quite the same as 'natural'.

 

[KimGordon67]

There actually are places where men have decided whether women do or don't have a right not to be raped. It is germaine, even if he was offering it facetiously.

That wasn't really my point.

 

[Que]

So you decide what are 'rights'? That's not really quite the same as 'natural'.

There's nothing more natural in my world and standing up for your rights. Just because you live in some sort of collectivist utopia where you get together and decide what's best for the collective doesn't make that in any way shape or form natural.

It is perfectly natural for a lion to defend the meat from his kill from the hyenas yapping at his heels.

Property rights are another natural right. The king or a committee declaring that you can't own anything doesn't make that right go away.

 

[KimGordon67]

There's nothing more natural in my world and standing up for your rights. Just because you live in some sort of collectivist utopia where you get together and decide what's best for the collective doesn't make that in any way shape or form natural.

It is perfectly natural for a lion to defend the meat from his kill from the hyenas yapping at his heels.

Property rights are another natural right. The king or a committee declaring that you can't own anything doesn't make that right go away.

I never said that (bolded point) was natural either.

So things are 'natural' rights ... because lions?

 

[Que]

I never said that (bolded point) was natural either.

So things are 'natural' rights ... because lions?

Things are natural because we humans have more than a limbic system and can decide what does and doesn't make a natural right. They come from God the universe or some innate, irrepressible drive.

You can argue what is or is not a natural right. You can argue whether you wish to support a particular natural right or suppress it. What you cannot do is argue that they do not exist.

Well actually you can argue that. It's your natural right to do so. But you look silly doing it.

It seems silly to start with the most basic. I have the unquestioned right to exist. Anyone that kills me is taking away that right.

 

[Hypoxia]

A 'right' isn't much use without enforcement. Black ex-slaves gained the 'right' to vote during Reconstruction but the Klan, terror attacks and murders, and the resurgent Southern establishment killed that right for a century, and voters are still suppressed and disenfranchised. It's a pretty fucking weak right. Women didn't gain it nationally till almost a century ago. Without enforcement, it goes away.

One may rant of "natural rights" but such actually exist only when and where a governing body and its minions say they do. Your right to Bear Arms doesn't include bazookas. Your right to Free Speech might exist in a fenced compound safely out of public view. Have fun.

 

[KimGordon67]

Things are natural because we humans have more than a limbic system and can decide what does and doesn't make a natural right. They come from God the universe or some innate, irrepressible drive.

Voila!

 

[KimGordon67]

A 'right' isn't much use without enforcement. Black ex-slaves gained the 'right' to vote during Reconstruction but the Klan, terror attacks and murders, and the resurgent Southern establishment killed that right for a century, and voters are still suppressed and disenfranchised. It's a pretty fucking weak right. Women didn't gain it nationally till almost a century ago. Without enforcement, it goes away.

One may rant of "natural rights" but such actually exist only when and where a governing body and its minions say they do. Your right to Bear Arms doesn't include bazookas. Your right to Free Speech might exist in a fenced compound safely out of public view. Have fun.

Quite.

I do think rights are a specific category of 'thing' in that we do tend to agree that they are at least relatively inalienable. Interestingly, in spite of the fact that guns are one of the apparently 'natural' rights, it seems to only appear in three national constitutions. I guess everyone else forgot?

 

[Que]

I never said that (bolded point) was natural either.

So things are 'natural' rights ... because lions?

...by the way those is your only two choices. Your rights are either natural and are completely independent of what the collective thinks your rights should be, or your rights are only what the collective decides to grant you. There are no other choices.

The way the world actually works is you have natural rights and the collective decides which if any of those rights they are going to suppress and under what circumstances.

The way it works without killing each other unnecessarily is that human beings decide from time to time to forgo some natural right in a specific situation. Just because I have the right of way doesn't necessarily mean I have to take it. I can yield if I choose to, or I can demand my right of way.

In my state we have a concept called the right of adverse possession. Basically if you aren't using your property and I use it in an open, notorious, and hostile way for 10 years I now own it. If 9 years in you noticed that I'm using the property and send me a note saying that are aware that I am using your property, and hereby grant a revocable limited use of said property, you have defeated my hostile possession.

In that situation you had the right to retain property that you own. I have the right to attempt to stake out a claim on property that is obviously abandoned.

Everyone has natural rights. My natural rights and your natural rights from time to time come into conflict. We resolve those conflicts as they occur; that's called civilization.

 

[Que]

Quite.

I do think rights are a specific category of 'thing' in that we do tend to agree that they are at least relatively inalienable. Interestingly, in spite of the fact that guns are one of the apparently 'natural' rights, it seems to only appear in three national constitutions. I guess everyone else forgot?

No, everyone else decided that the collective should decide who does and does not get to exercise their natural rights and that the government should be the only ones with the force available to ensure that dynamic.

everyone else mistrust their citizenry and trust their government. We are the opposite.

 

[KimGordon67]

...by the way those is your only two choices. Your rights are either natural and are completely independent of what the collective thinks your rights should be, or your rights are only what the collective decides to grant you. There are no other choices.

The way the world actually works is you have natural rights and the collective decides which if any of those rights they are going to suppress and under what circumstances.

The way it works without killing each other unnecessarily is that human beings decide from time to time to forgo some natural right in a specific situation. Just because I have the right of way doesn't necessarily mean I have to take it. I can yield if I choose to, or I can demand my right of way.

In my state we have a concept called the right of adverse possession. Basically if you aren't using your property and I use it in an open, notorious, and hostile way for 10 years I now own it. If 9 years in you noticed that I'm using the property and send me a note saying that are aware that I am using your property, and hereby grant a revocable limited use of said property, you have defeated my hostile possession.

In that situation you had the right to retain property that you own. I have the right to attempt to stake out a claim on property that is obviously abandoned.

Everyone has natural rights. My natural rights and your natural rights from time to time come into conflict. We resolve those conflicts as they occur; that's called civilization.

s'ok - you pretty much made my point when you wrote "Things are natural because we humans have more than a limbic system and can decide what does and doesn't make a natural right."

 

[Weird Harold]

I do understand what the concept of a 'right' is - I get that they're not privileges bestowed by anyone. But how is it established that free speech, arming bears, etc are the things that are 'rights' that the government shouldn't infringe on?

The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It is part of the Bill of Rights.

The amendment as proposed by Congress in 1789 reads as follows:

• The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

A common mistake, and one that was predicted by the founders, is that the Bill Of Rights is the sum total of protected natural rights. The Ninth Amendment is often ignored (as is the Tenth.)

Lawyers, being Lawyers, can find arguments for and against any Natural Right that might come into conflict with a law or public safety. ("Your Right to swing your fist ends at my nose." for example.) The Supreme Court of the US is the final arbiter of what is and isn't protected solely because people can't agree unanimously on whether the sky is blue (or anything else.)

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Quite.

I do think rights are a specific category of 'thing' in that we do tend to agree that they are at least relatively inalienable. Interestingly, in spite of the fact that guns are one of the apparently 'natural' rights, it seems to only appear in three national constitutions. I guess everyone else forgot?

The axle that you and Que keep getting wrapped around is the Constitution's "misimplication" of the right to keep and bear arms as a "natural right." The natural right, as Que is trying to tell you, is one of self-defense. The Constitution merely manifests that natural right with the most potent, efficient tool for that purpose at the time -- gun ownership. And its potency and efficiency continue to make it pretty damn popular.

You keep miscasting the right with the tool for securing it. No, there is nothing magical about guns that compels governments interested in securing the "natural right" of self-defense to sanctify gun ownership as the tool for that purpose. Governments which have not done so cannot properly be said to have abandoned their citizenry to lawless chaos. If that is merely the point you wish to "win" go ahead and claim it.

But neither does the fact that OUR government (and a handful of others) endorsed and embraced that tool as a right FOR its citizens with the intention of safe-guarding their welfare condemn that same government as being callously neglectful of that same welfare just because you and others see it that way.

The real "natural right" that reigns supreme in all of this is the right of self-governance, either in the form of a democracy or a republic. HOW those in a republic adjudicate and accommodate the natural right of self-defense needs no other moral justification than the very republican system itself.

Neither you nor anyone else short of God almighty will come up with an authoritative argument to contravene that.

 

[richard_daily]

Kg67 needs a good raping.

Her trolling is textbook freshette boring.

You're pathetic.

 

[richard_daily]

OK, the utilisation of the 'felons not voting' example was more a generalised response to the whole 'Constitutional rights are inalienable' argument, by demonstrating that they clearly aren't. Obviously our positions on that situation are pretty aligned, so there's no point in debating that.

Sorry, but I've reread your post a couple of times, and I don't really understand the rest of the point?

I'm not sure exactly which part isn't clear, so I'll try to re-phrase:

You cannot make someone's rights greater, by taking away another right from someone else.

 

[phrodeau]

The axle that you and Que keep getting wrapped around is the Constitution's "misimplication" of the right to keep and bear arms as a "natural right." The natural right, as Que is trying to tell you, is one of self-defense. The Constitution merely manifests that natural right with the most potent, efficient tool for that purpose at the time -- gun ownership. And its potency and efficiency continue to make it pretty damn popular.

You keep miscasting the right with the tool for securing it. No, there is nothing magical about guns that compels governments interested in securing the "natural right" of self-defense to sanctify gun ownership as the tool for that purpose. Governments which have not done so cannot properly be said to have abandoned their citizenry to lawless chaos. If that is merely the point you wish to "win" go ahead and claim it.

But neither does the fact that OUR government (and a handful of others) endorsed and embraced that tool as a right FOR its citizens with the intention of safe-guarding their welfare condemn that same government as being callously neglectful of that same welfare just because you and others see it that way.

The real "natural right" that reigns supreme in all of this is the right of self-governance, either in the form of a democracy or a republic. HOW those in a republic adjudicate and accommodate the natural right of self-defense needs no other moral justification than the very republican system itself.

Neither you nor anyone else short of God almighty will come up with an authoritative argument to contravene that.

The 2nd Amendment does not give the right of gun ownership, but only to keep and bear arms. The government could decree that all guns are owned by the State, and still be within the Constitution.