Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[ThatsTheGuy]

Ah, I thought you were located in the UK, which banned slavery in 1833. Perhaps they, as the gun grabbers are trying to do, were trying to solve a problem that didn't exist?

Here in the US we banned the import of fresh slaves in I think 1807 or 8. And then fought a war a few years later to (among other things) end it once and for all. Well, in the US anyway. It continued and continues today elsewhere.

Change takes time.

 

[gunthernehmen]

No I'm not - natural rights don't exist, so aren't there to be confused with other things. Basically, they fall into the same category as god. You can't prove their existence, so they're just based on faith.

Social contracts are a somewhat different beast that, like all contracts, involve an exchange of consideration. Rights don't - they exist independently of the provision of consideration but only because that's one of the things humans have agreed to in relation to the definition of a 'right'.

And you don't see that you are taking your own position on faith?

My axiom is that we are born with certain rights. We enter into a social contract (whether it is based on government, religion or just a group of like minded folks) so that our differences don't cause us to kill each other. Your axiom is that you have everything that your government permits you to have and nothing more. Suit yourself. How YOU choose has no bearing on me. At all.

Tell me, before governments and priests came along to allow us these rights, did the humans we descended from have any rights? You bet your bippy they did.

Change takes time.

Precisely.

When the US was formed we had a LOT of British baggage to sort through. (Virtually EVERY slave was brought to this continent by the Brits - the practice was already dying off when we kicked them out)

It wasn't politically possible to start out from the gate with a ban on slavery. So we made it uncomfortable, then banned the import and finally banned the practice altogether.

 

[oggbashan]

And you don't see that you are taking your own position on faith?

My axiom is that we are born with certain rights. We enter into a social contract (whether it is based on government, religion or just a group of like minded folks) so that our differences don't cause us to kill each other. Your axiom is that you have everything that your government permits you to have and nothing more. Suit yourself. How YOU choose has no bearing on me. At all.

Tell me, before governments and priests came along to allow us these rights, did the humans we descended from have any rights? You bet your bippy they did.

...

You bet your bibby they DIDN'T.

Many people now do NOT have any rights. Ask a peasant in China, anyone in North Korea, those opposing President Assad in Syria, those in Yemen, parts of the former Belgian Congo...

They don't even have a right to stay alive.

The UN declaration on Human Rights was signed during my lifetime. That was the first time any such rights were considered world-wide. Yet those rights do not exist in many countries. And yes - slavery still exists in the 21st century.

 

[gunthernehmen]

You bet your bibby** they DIDN'T.

Many people now do NOT have any rights. Ask a peasant in China, anyone in North Korea, those opposing President Assad in Syria, those in Yemen, parts of the former Belgian Congo...

They don't even have a right to stay alive.

The UN declaration on Human Rights was signed during my lifetime. That was the first time any such rights were considered world-wide. Yet those rights do not exist in many countries. And yes - slavery still exists in the 21st century.

If it makes you more secure to believe that rights are bestowed upon you by the government in power where you live, then I feel sorry for you. You limit your life.

Everyone you mention has rights. Whether they are allowed to exercise them is a completely separate matter.

Unless you would claim that KimGordon's slaves had no right to freedom all those years they were held captive? Is that your position?

** That's biPPy. Bippy, not bibby. A bibby is that substitute thumb babies suck on.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Where is your citation for the bolded statement?

The golf course thing? I read it on the internet. (After I posted it there, which is where most grabbers get their stats)

Incidentally, according NOAA**, about 30 people die each year from lightning strikes but around 270 are hit and survive. Something like 130 are killed in mass shootings. So, unquestionably, my original statement was factual, even without the "hyperbole" about golf courses.

** http://origin-www.nws.noaa.gov/om/lightning/odds.shtml

 

[phrodeau]

The golf course thing? I read it on the internet. (After I posted it there, which is where most grabbers get their stats)

Incidentally, according NOAA**, about 30 people die each year from lightning strikes but around 270 are hit and survive. Something like 130 are killed in mass shootings. So, unquestionably, my original statement was factual, even without the "hyperbole" about golf courses.

** http://origin-www.nws.noaa.gov/om/lightning/odds.shtml

Sounds like you're comparing a preventable risk to one that is not. I wonder how that can make a point.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Sounds like you're comparing a preventable risk to one that is not. I wonder how that can make a point.

Well, yeah. That was my point. I avoid lightning strikes by not golfing.

Since the unending onslaught of mass shootings could happen anywhere at any time (although usually they happen in gun free zones because the shooter knows nobody will be able to shoot back), I can't avoid those. The best I can do is be armed whenever possible. Of course that means I can't enter a federal building or some schools. That's the price I pay to be safer.

 

[oggbashan]

If it makes you more secure to believe that rights are bestowed upon you by the government in power where you live, then I feel sorry for you. You limit your life.

Everyone you mention has rights. Whether they are allowed to exercise them is a completely separate matter.

Unless you would claim that KimGordon's slaves had no right to freedom all those years they were held captive? Is that your position?

** That's biPPy. Bippy, not bibby. A bibby is that substitute thumb babies suck on.

Bibby is more appropriate for your posts. You don't live in the real adult world where people are killed at random by their governments.

What rights had Chinese people during the Cultural Revolution when millions died? Or during the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge? Or in Rwanda?

What rights have Ukrainians got in the Crimea and other parts of Ukraine occupied by Russia?

What rights have the Rohinga got in Mymanmar?

I could go on and on.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No I'm not - natural rights don't exist, so aren't there to be confused with other things. Basically, they fall into the same category as god. You can't prove their existence, so they're just based on faith.
[/I]

You could also say that about other so called "rights" which are quite obviously just privileges governments bestow and snatch away whenever they want.

Making 2A rights every bit as valid as any other.

 

[dan_c00000]

Sorry I wasn't here for that. I'm sure someone noticed.

Why don't you answer me then: how many dead kids? It's a simple question.

How many dead kids did it take for you to realize

Dodging and changing the subject. Good job. Any time you want to tell me how many dead kids it's going to take let me know.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Bibby is more appropriate for your posts. You don't live in the real adult world where people are killed at random by their governments.

What rights had Chinese people during the Cultural Revolution when millions died? Or during the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge? Or in Rwanda?

What rights have Ukrainians got in the Crimea and other parts of Ukraine occupied by Russia?

What rights have the Rohinga got in Mymanmar?

I could go on and on.

The answer is the same...the rights that they secure for themselves.

No different than the warlord king who rules over his valley in Afghanistan or wherever.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Why don't you answer me then: how many dead kids? It's a simple question.



Dodging and changing the subject. Good job. Any time you want to tell me how many dead kids it's going to take let me know.

No it's a bullshit question because it's not either or.

You can't even be bothered to ask the question in it's entirety anymore.

How many dead kids it's going to take to what?

 

[oggbashan]

The answer is the same...the rights that they secure for themselves.

No different than the warlord king who rules over his valley in Afghanistan or wherever.

And how do they secure those rights?

They have the right to die pointlessly - that's all.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Bibby is more appropriate for your posts. You don't live in the real adult world where people are killed at random by their governments.

What rights had Chinese people during the Cultural Revolution when millions died? Or during the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge? Or in Rwanda?

What rights have Ukrainians got in the Crimea and other parts of Ukraine occupied by Russia?

What rights have the Rohinga got in Mymanmar?

I could go on and on.

I'll take one shot at explaining it to you.

Here in the US you have the right to free speech. Well, not really, but the government is not permitted to stop you from speaking your mind.

Let's say you you were walking up to the ballot box, made a comment that Trump is a bad person and a nearby cop tells you to shut your mouth and if you persisted, he shoots you.

Did you have the right to say what you did? Of course.

Did the agent of the government have the right to force you to shut up? Of course not.

Did you shut up? Yes.

That doesn't mean you had no RIGHT. It means your RIGHT was VIOLATED.

You can do the rest of the math yourself.

 

[oggbashan]

I'll take one shot at explaining it to you.

Here in the US you have the right to free speech. Well, not really, but the government is not permitted to stop you from speaking your mind.

Let's say you you were walking up to the ballot box, made a comment that Trump is a bad person and a nearby cop tells you to shut your mouth and if you persisted, he shoots you.

Did you have the right to say what you did? Of course.

Did the agent of the government have the right to force you to shut up? Of course not.

Did you shut up? Yes.

That doesn't mean you had no RIGHT. It means your RIGHT was VIOLATED.

You can do the rest of the math yourself.

Large parts of the world do NOT have the right to free speech. In many countries if you make abusive comments about the ruler/leader/state religion the government or an official has the right to imprison you without trial, or just shoot you and charge your family with the cost of the cartridge.

What you (and I) are fortunate to have as rights are NOT universal. They are rights that we have won, and defended at a high cost with the blood of our troops (and civilians) during WW2. Without the US and its allies most of Europe would not have the rights to free speech, to elect our governments, nor even to bring up our children as we want.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Large parts of the world do NOT have the right to free speech. In many countries if you make abusive comments about the ruler/leader/state religion the government or an official has the right to imprison you without trial, or just shoot you and charge your family with the cost of the cartridge.

What you (and I) are fortunate to have as rights are NOT universal. They are rights that we have won, and defended at a high cost with the blood of our troops (and civilians) during WW2. Without the US and its allies most of Europe would not have the rights to free speech, to elect our governments, nor even to bring up our children as we want.

I'll take one shot at explaining it to you.

Here in the US you have the right to free speech. Well, not really, but the government is not permitted to stop you from speaking your mind.

Let's say you you were walking up to the ballot box, made a comment that Trump is a bad person and a nearby cop tells you to shut your mouth and if you persisted, he shoots you.

Did you have the right to say what you did? Of course.

Did the agent of the government have the right to force you to shut up? Of course not.

Did you shut up? Yes.

That doesn't mean you had no RIGHT. It means your RIGHT was VIOLATED.

You can do the rest of the math yourself.

 

[oggbashan]

Why two identical shots at explaining?

Your argument doesn't bear repeating.

 

[todski28]

I'll take one shot at explaining it to you.

Here in the US you have the right to free speech. Well, not really, but the government is not permitted to stop you from speaking your mind.

Let's say you you were walking up to the ballot box, made a comment that Trump is a bad person and a nearby cop tells you to shut your mouth and if you persisted, he shoots you.

Did you have the right to say what you did? Of course.

Did the agent of the government have the right to force you to shut up? Of course not.

Did you shut up? Yes.

That doesn't mean you had no RIGHT. It means your RIGHT was VIOLATED.

You can do the rest of the math yourself.

Youre wrong, rights are a negotiated social contract between the government and the people to allow autonomous freedoms so there is less war between state and individual. I'ts the glue that holds the foundation of western civilization together. Each negotiated right is the responsibility of your neighbour to uphold.

Its the whole concept that allows the tolerance of differing viewpoints. Differing views are a neccessity to keep tyranny from taking hold. The balance between regimented behaviour i.e. conservatism and the freeing of behaviour i.e. liberalism. The balance struck between the two opposing views is what has helped us flourish as a society. Too much left and we end up totalitarian too much right we have the same.

What stops me from taking my neighbours posessions?
No its nor their gun

Its the cultural values we uphold as a society based on an agreed set of prinicipals.

Rights are a social construct period. Otherwise the biggest strongest or the most devious and cunning would simply cut us down and take by force what they will.

We accept we have rights because every one else upholds their responsibilty to enable us to those rights and the government is supposed to be the muscle that umpires between the populace when those rights have been violated

 

[gunthernehmen]

Why two identical shots at explaining?

Your argument doesn't bear repeating.

I'll take one shot at explaining it to you.

Here in the US you have the right to free speech. Well, not really, but the government is not permitted to stop you from speaking your mind.

Let's say you you were walking up to the ballot box, made a comment that Trump is a bad person and a nearby cop tells you to shut your mouth and if you persisted, he shoots you.

Did you have the right to say what you did? Of course.

Did the agent of the government have the right to force you to shut up? Of course not.

Did you shut up? Yes.

That doesn't mean you had no RIGHT. It means your RIGHT was VIOLATED.

You can do the rest of the math yourself.

 

[oggbashan]

Repeating your assertions does not make them true.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Youre wrong, rights are a negotiated social contract between the governmenr and the people ro try and allow autonomous freedoms so there is less war between state and individual, its the glue that holds the fpundation of western civilization together. Each negotiated right is the responsibility of your neighbour to uphold.

Its the whole concept that allows the tolerance of differing viewpoints. Differing views are a neccessity to keep tyranny from taking hold. The balance between regimented behaviour i.e. conservatism and the freeing of behaviour i.e. liberalism. The balance struck between the two opposing views is what has helped us flourish as a society. Too much left and we end up totalitarian too much right we have the same.

What stops me from taking my neighbours posessions?
No its nor their gun

Its the cultural values we uphold as a society based on an agreed set of prinicipals.

Rights are a social construct period. Otherwise the biggest strongest or the most devious and cunning would simply cut us down and take by force what they will.

We accept we have rights because every one else upholds their responsibilty to enable us to those rights.

That's your axiom. You happen to be wrong. Rights "are". They are not granted. The Constitution protects the, not grants them.

 

[Blue]

A natural right (or inalienable or God given, take your choice) is a right that exists. It simply IS. You, Kim, have the right to life. You have the right to fend for yourself, sell good, at. at least to the extent that you aren't infringing on someone else's rights. You have the right to defend yourself and those that depend on you. You don't have the right to take away something that another person has a right to, for instance, their life.
[...]
These natural rights are not given to us by government. Nor the Constitution. Not by any law it social contract. They just exist. Our Constitution PROTECTS certain rights. It doesn't Grant them and it certainly does not limit us to those enumerated.

Oh dear god.
That 'right' did not pre-exist as some sort of physical law or act of nature. What is difficult to understand about that? If rights were akin to unalienable forces that exist as a by-product of the universe itself existing there would be literally no way to violate a right. The universe has no morality and issues no rights, morality itself is a concept invented by human brains, there is no higher power that cares whether or not a person lives or dies or judges the moral value of their death.

There is no rule in the functioning of the universe or any of its intrinsic mechanisms stopping, preventing, allowing, or judging how humans should live and die during their futile and ultimately totally insignificant lives. There is no objective moral standard. The things you listed as "rights" are merely actions you are able to perform within the constraints of the society in which you live, and you judge those things to be desirable with your own internal mechanisms that decide what is and isn't beneficial to you. Which is the primary reason why people who believe in objective morality (or 'natural rights', same concept) can never agree on what those objective rights are.

You cannot say that rights just "are" a thing. Or that they just "do" exist. That doesn't make any sense. What capacity do they exist in (other than certain chemical wirings in our brains) if they are purely conceptual objects?

 

[oggbashan]

That's your axiom. You happen to be wrong. Rights "are". They are not granted. The Constitution protects the, not grants them.

That might be true in the US.

It isn't true world wide. Look beyond your borders.

Edited for PS: The US Declaration of Independence was special pleading to justify rebellion. It was rhetoric, not law. It was intended to persuade foreign governments that the revolt against the Westminster government was justifiable. The only country that accepted the Declaration was France - who were fighting the British anyway and wanted the 13 Colonies to open another front in the war against Britain.

The Declaration of Independence is a wonderful document but it didn't establish the existence of 'rights'.

 

[todski28]

That's your axiom. You happen to be wrong. Rights "are". They are not granted. The Constitution protects the, not grants them.

Society is simply one big game, we invented the rules and everyone plays along, whilst arguing at times over those rules.

Im sorry but I can't be wrong, otherwise parents would not be able to abuse their kids, murder would not happen because its people right to live, or is it their right to kill?

We all benefit from having as minimal rules as we do so we can exist but saying rights just are is denying reality.

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

Oh dear god.
That 'right' did not pre-exist as some sort of physical law or act of nature. What is difficult to understand about that? If rights were akin to unalienable forces that exist as a by-product of the universe itself existing there would be literally no way to violate a right. The universe has no morality and issues no rights, morality itself is a concept invented by human brains, there is no higher power that cares whether or not a person lives or dies or judges the moral value of their death.

There is no rule in the functioning of the universe or any of its intrinsic mechanisms stopping, preventing, allowing, or judging how humans should live and die during their futile and ultimately totally insignificant lives. There is no objective moral standard. The things you listed as "rights" are merely actions you are able to perform within the constraints of the society in which you live, and you judge those things to be desirable with your own internal mechanisms that decide what is and isn't beneficial to you. Which is the primary reason why people who believe in objective morality (or 'natural rights', same concept) can never agree on what those objective rights are.

You cannot say that rights just "are" a thing. Or that they just "do" exist. That doesn't make any sense. What capacity do they exist in (other than certain chemical wirings in our brains) if they are purely conceptual objects?

Do you realize how far off base this post is?

How would you feel if you had to protect your own life? Instead of defending yourself, would you take the time to tell your assailant how you don't have a right to defend yourself?