Gun control ... actual question

[contrifan32]

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.

Here, maybe this will help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUexKY8Blew

 

[Colonel Hogan]

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.

Only if you divorce the obvious intent of the Amendment through disingenuous use of the language. The Amendment clearly did not INTEND to affect the "security of a free state" through the "necess[ity]" of a "militia" with anything other than guns NOR with anything other than guns OWNED BY private citizens.

The latter objective, unmistakably discerned from Constitutional Convention debates, was deemed every bit as important as the first. Why, you might ask, if that was the case did they not include that specific language IN the Amendment?

I don't know. I can't say for certain. But I am reasonably certain, based on the reaction of the Founding Fathers when the British army came forth to disarm them some 20 years previously, it was NOT for the purpose of being able to disarm the American citizenry at some future date when a militia might not be necessary.

There is nothing in those same convention debates to suggest such nonsense.

Only the most brazen of liars would argue otherwise.

 

[Que]

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.

Of all of the ideas that anti-gun nuts have had to try to figure out a workaround from the plain language of the amendment, that has to be the second dumbest one.

First place goes to your idea that they could simply regulate triggers from being installed on guns.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I do understand what the concept of a 'right' is - I get that they're not privileges bestowed by anyone.

Oh good, that's a basic fundamental concept of the US legal system.

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 Bill of Rights.

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

So then you think rights are privileges that the collective (the state) grants you then and are not inherent to being an individual living, thinking human being?

 

[butters]

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!)

he's just scum, kim. don't expect more from him and you'll never be disappointed.

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.



Shall "we" put it to a vote?

creepy

You're pathetic.

he's that AND vile, lying on a day-to-day basis about anyone he cares to

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

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.



Shall "we" put it to a vote?

^ Skeevy bastard. Would you talk about your children that way?

 

[McFlippant]

But how is it established that free speech, arming bears, etc are the things that are 'rights' that the government shouldn't infringe on?

1. The framers of the new Constitution for the United States of America, which they specifically constituted to create that new US's new federal government, reverently acknowledged all mankind's free entitlement from "the laws of nature and nature's God" as equal, and that it's "self-evident" "certain" God-endowed "unalienable rights" are naturally far above the purview of any government. And that's exactly why, in a document that was intentionally written to make clear all the power the new government was/is granted by the Constitution, the new federal government was given no power whatsoever concerning those unalienable rights.

(Tis more sensible to specifically list ALL power government of free men has, rather than even begin to endlessly list ALL power such a government is never permitted at all.)

2. The new Constitution for the United States of America was passed out of Convention on September 17, 1787, and onto the State legislatures for possible ratification by the required 2/3 majority of them (that "super majority" required by the Constitution itself).

3. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth State to ratify, thereby meeting that 2/3 majority, and thereby making the Constitution the law of the land.

That's exactly "how" "it" was "established" 229 years ago, and just exactly as "it" stands today.

A socialist will never understand/accept how simple that is because a socialist, by pure political nature, cannot possibly even imagine any entity/concept more powerful than the state itself, let alone any 'rights' a socialist just as naturally can't see existing at all unless the state creates and grants them in the first place.

You see, the revolutionary political-principled founders and framers of America believed the world's highest power is - naturally - its Creator, and that Power is not only what they firmly relied on in declaring American independence itself, but also is the Power Who anchors American governance in a world drifting in socialism.

So, it is no doubt their disbelief in/rejection of that Power which basically conceives socialists' full belief that their beloved state - a nation of men - is the most powerful entity of all.

 

[BotanyBoy]

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.

But leftism says you can use socialism and social justice to do exactly that with social and economic prosperity.

LMFAO......

Why not rights too comrade???

 

[KimGordon67]

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.

No, at this particular point of this particular sub-discussion, what I'm trying to establish is how a 'natural' right is established. What I'm suggesting (again) is 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.

The issue here is that, until someone can demonstrate to me where the list of these 'natural rights' comes from, I'm basically getting a version of the 'because God said so' response, except apparently with lions rather than God.

 

[KimGordon67]

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.

That's sounding a lot like socialism! You need to be careful with that shit - someone'll have a heart attack or something.

 

[KimGordon67]

Here, maybe this will help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUexKY8Blew

I can't work out if you're joking or not.

 

[KimGordon67]

Oh good, that's a basic fundamental concept of the US legal system.



The Bill of Rights.





So then you think rights are privileges that the collective (the state) grants you then and are not inherent to being an individual living, thinking human being?

Any response I gave to this would just be repeating myself.

 

[KimGordon67]

1. The framers of the new Constitution for the United States of America, which they specifically constituted to create that new US's new federal government, reverently acknowledged all mankind's free entitlement from "the laws of nature and nature's God" as equal, and that it's "self-evident" "certain" God-endowed "unalienable rights" are naturally far above the purview of any government. And that's exactly why, in a document that was intentionally written to make clear all the power the new government was/is granted by the Constitution, the new federal government was given no power whatsoever concerning those unalienable rights.

(Tis more sensible to specifically list ALL power government of free men has, rather than even begin to endlessly list ALL power such a government is never permitted at all.)

2. The new Constitution for the United States of America was passed out of Convention on September 17, 1787, and onto the State legislatures for possible ratification by the required 2/3 majority of them (that "super majority" required by the Constitution itself).

3. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth State to ratify, thereby meeting that 2/3 majority, and thereby making the Constitution the law of the land.

That's exactly "how" "it" was "established" 229 years ago, and just exactly as "it" stands today.

A socialist will never understand/accept how simple that is because a socialist, by pure political nature, cannot possibly even imagine any entity/concept more powerful than the state itself, let alone any 'rights' a socialist just as naturally can't see existing at all unless the state creates and grants them in the first place.

You see, the revolutionary political-principled founders and framers of America believed the world's highest power is - naturally - its Creator, and that Power is not only what they firmly relied on in declaring American independence itself, but also is the Power Who anchors American governance in a world drifting in socialism.

So, it is no doubt their disbelief in/rejection of that Power which basically conceives socialists' full belief that their beloved state - a nation of men - is the most powerful entity of all.

Ah - so 'natural' rights are decided by God? Is that what you're saying?

 

[KimGordon67]

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.

I'm still not clear how this relates to the discussion we were having, and it seems unlikely I would have said that. Can you define the two specific rights we were talking about?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Any response I gave to this would just be repeating myself.

That is on you, not me.

But you do understand that these two statements you gave are in direct contradiction with one another right?

I do understand what the concept of a 'right' is - I get that they're not privileges bestowed by anyone.

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.

I'm asking you to pick one.....are rights not privileges bestowed by anyone or are they privileges bestowed by 'we' (we = government authority 100%) ??

Can't have it both ways.

 

[McFlippant]

Ah - so 'natural' rights are decided by God? Is that what you're saying?

You inquired:

...how is it established that free speech, arming bears, etc are the things that are 'rights' that the government shouldn't infringe on?

And I posted EXACTLY "how", yet still those FACTs aren't enough for socialist you. Big surprise.

BTW, and since you're still clueless:

A "natural" right is anything that every individual has by the grace of "the laws of nature and nature's God", rights that exist naturally no matter the affect(s) of any other individual or any other entity.

Breathing is a natural right.

Once naturally conceived, life is a natural right.

Defending one's life, liberty and property is a natural characteristic.

Thinking and speaking one's mind is just as natural...

Shall we go on?

 

[KimGordon67]

That is on you, not me.

But you do understand that these two statements you gave are in direct contradiction with one another right?






I'm asking you to pick one.....are rights not privileges bestowed by anyone or are they privileges bestowed by 'we' (we = government authority 100%) ??

Can't have it both ways.

I haven't said they're privileges bestowed by anyone - I've said that 'we' (whoever the 'we' is) decide what they are. (I'm actually now not entirely sure about the 'bestowing' thing either, because of the point Hypoxia made, but that's of beside the point.)

What I'm trying to get someone who's a defender of the concept of 'rights' as some objective fact to do is explain to me how we know what 'things' are natural rights. The only answers I've really had thus far are:
- lions (which I'm taking as a synonym for 'nature' or 'evolution' or something)
- God
- Ted Nugent (*shudder*)
And then we had Que's explanation which was "Things are natural because we humans have more than a limbic system and can decide what does and doesn't make a natural right." Which is basically my point, but he's said the opposite at various points (e.g. lions), so I'm not entirely sure what he really thinks.

Also, with both the lions and the God explanation, neither person has suggested how we identify the things that lions/God have created as 'natural rights'.

 

[Lancecastor]

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

I don't care....that said...tell us about your rape!

 

[Que]

If WE decide, then they aren't in alienable rights.

It's okay that you don't believe in inalienable rights. Lots of people don't believe in them so I don't know why you keep trying to pretend that you believe in them while rejecting the idea that they are in fact inalienable, meaning they cannot be separated from the human who was born with those rights.

It doesn't matter where you think they came from, it only matters whether or not they exist.

I'm coming around to the idea that you simply like to argue for the sake of argument.

You have been given innumerable examples of clear natural rights. That are indisputable, and you still have "questions."

 

[KimGordon67]

You inquired:



And I posted EXACTLY "how", yet still those FACTs aren't enough for socialist you. Big surprise.

BTW, and since you're still clueless:

A "natural" right is anything that every individual has by the grace of "the laws of nature and nature's God", rights that exist naturally no matter the affect(s) of any other individual or any other entity.

Breathing is a natural right.

Once naturally conceived, life is a natural right.

Defending one's life, liberty and property is a natural characteristic.

Thinking and speaking one's mind is just as natural...

Shall we go on?

OK, I've re-read your response again, and I still can't see in there how the framers of the Constitution (or the BoR) identified those rights, other than them being "self-evident". How did they decide that something was 'self-evident'?

 

[Que]

I haven't said they're privileges bestowed by anyone - I've said that 'we' (whoever the 'we' is) decide what they are. (I'm actually now not entirely sure about the 'bestowing' thing either, because of the point Hypoxia made, but that's of beside the point.)

What I'm trying to get someone who's a defender of the concept of 'rights' as some objective fact to do is explain to me how we know what 'things' are natural rights. The only answers I've really had thus far are:
- lions (which I'm taking as a synonym for 'nature' or 'evolution' or something)
- God
- Ted Nugent (*shudder*)
And then we had Que's explanation which was "Things are natural because we humans have more than a limbic system and can RECOGNIZE what does and doesn't make a natural right." Which is basically my point, but he's said the opposite at various points (e.g. lions), so I'm not entirely sure what he really thinks.

Also, with both the lions and the God explanation, neither person has suggested how we identify the things that lions/God have created as 'natural rights'.

A better word in my sentence should be 'recognize' not 'decide. A human being doesn't simply decide one day upon navel-gazing that he has a right not to be killed that he has the right to defend himself. He recognizes that, because it's innate.

My point was that human beings have the ability to be self-aware and they have the ability for self-reflection and anyone who spent any time not living in a collectivist utopia, who has any capacity for self-reflection, clearly understands the limits of what other people can do to them.

 

[McFlippant]

Most of us are like the Artic explorers who always failed to find their ways across - because they insisted they do it their way, according to their way of thinking, according to how they FORCED their ways across!

While a few of us inherently understand all true gain in this life only comes from first understanding how insignificant we are as far as nature is fully concerned, which then frees us to realize how well we adapt to nature determines eventual success...

Just as the very first man to ever successfully cross the Artic did.

 

[KimGordon67]

If WE decide, then they aren't in alienable rights.

It's okay that you don't believe in inalienable rights. Lots of people don't believe in them so I don't know why you keep trying to pretend that you believe in them while rejecting the idea that they are in fact inalienable, meaning they cannot be separated from the human who was born with those rights.

It doesn't matter where you think they came from, it only matters whether or not they exist.

I'm coming around to the idea that you simply like to argue for the sake of argument.

You have been given innumerable examples of clear natural rights. That are indisputable, and you still have "questions."

I do agree that humans have rights, and that they're inalienable. That isn't contradictory to saying that that's the case because 'we' (whoever that is) work out what those rights are, pretty much through a process of saying 'yeah, it seems reasonable to suggest that everyone should have this particular thing'.

Giving examples of 'natural' rights does not explain how it's decided that they're 'natural'. You're just listing the things that you (or someone) has decided should be in that category. They have no objective reality.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

If WE decide, then they aren't in alienable rights.

It's okay that you don't believe in inalienable rights. Lots of people don't believe in them so I don't know why you keep trying to pretend that you believe in them while rejecting the idea that they are in fact inalienable, meaning they cannot be separated from the human who was born with those rights.

It doesn't matter where you think they came from, it only matters whether or not they exist.

I'm coming around to the idea that you simply like to argue for the sake of argument.

You have been given innumerable examples of clear natural rights. That are indisputable, and you still have "questions."

If you believe that you "own" you and have the right to defend you, your property. The same goes for any property gained by your efforts (assuming you violate no one else's right to life, liberty and property). If, on the other hand, you believe in the idea of a "social contract" which defines rights, then they only rights that you have are whimsical, capricious and subject to change.

People who have grown up in cultures that are subject to a long laundry list of things considered to be a "right" then a citizen has the right to all sorts and manner of things, education, healthcare and the safety of living in a disarmed society and society can demand as large a share of their life (enforced selflessness by the guns of government) to be sacrificed to the greater good, because the greater good has provided for them. As it has been starkly put by Elizabeth Warren, "You didn't build that (i.e., if it weren't for the collective works of government, you would never have been successful)."

 

[KimGordon67]

A better word in my sentence should be 'recognize' not 'decide. A human being doesn't simply decide one day upon navel-gazing that he has a right not to be killed that he has the right to defend himself. He recognizes that, because it's innate.

My point was that human beings have the ability to be self-aware and they have the ability for self-reflection and anyone who spent any time not living in a collectivist utopia, who has any capacity for self-reflection, clearly understands the limits of what other people can do to them.

God, it's like banging my head on a brick wall ... ok, how do they recognise them? What are the necessary conditions something must have in order to be considered a 'natural right'? (I'm just asking the same question in myriad different ways, because it seems so difficult to understand.)