Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[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?

 

[BotanyBoy]

And how do they secure those rights?

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

Again, same as any other...they take them by force.

 

[oggbashan]

Again, same as any other...they take them by force.

And fail. They just die - in their millions.

Edited to add: The US would not have obtained independence without the French.

Most rebellions or revolutions do not succeed without outside support with arms or even armies. If there is no outside help? The revolution usually fails.

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

And fail. They just die - in their millions.

Edited to add: The US would not have obtained independence without the French.

Most rebellions or revolutions do not succeed without outside support with arms or even armies. If there is no outside help? The revolution usually fails.

I do believe that. I cannot remember who the French military leader/adviser was who helped the US in the American Revolution. He played a key role in the training of the unskilled US citizens/militias turned soldiers. He also tried to get reinforcements and some type of Naval assistance from France. I think the reinforcements came, but were too late.

There was another in the US Civil War, but I forget which side he was on.

 

[gunthernehmen]

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

Why? I live here.

 

[oggbashan]

Are you claiming that the slaves that existed in the US and UK as well as everywhere else in the world had no natural rights?

But you're claiming that I am the one trampling other people?

Let me explain.

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.

If you try that, then they, in exercising their right to defend themselves, have the right to stop you by whatever means is necessary, of they so choose.

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.

Does that help you?

Why? I live here.

Because your assertion in the first post I have quoted above is that rights are 'natural'.

If you are asserting world-wide 'natural rights' you cannot ignore the whole world outside the US especially countries where those rights do not exist.

Your 'natural rights' were fought for by Washington's Army. The 'rights' that exist in Europe were fought for by US and Allied forces. Much blood was shed for those rights. They aren't 'natural'. They were established by fighting for freedom and need to be constantly defended.

 

[My I]

And fail. They just die - in their millions.

Edited to add: The US would not have obtained independence without the French.

Most rebellions or revolutions do not succeed without outside support with arms or even armies. If there is no outside help? The revolution usually fails.

And then we had to fight the Brits and the French a couple more times to keep it. Later we had to fight to keep the Brits and the French from losing their countries.

 

[coachdb18]

Because your assertion in the first post I have quoted above is that rights are 'natural'.

If you are asserting world-wide 'natural rights' you cannot ignore the whole world outside the US especially countries where those rights do not exist.

Your 'natural rights' were fought for by Washington's Army. The 'rights' that exist in Europe were fought for by US and Allied forces. Much blood was shed for those rights. They aren't 'natural'. They were established by fighting for freedom and need to be constantly defended.

You have a totally wrong and European understanding of the nature of 'rights'. They are inherent, and 'natural'. The fact that we had to fight to exercise those rights does not diminish the fact they are inate to every human being, and the fact your government makes no such promise to protect them is sad, but our Constitution forms a promise by our government not to interfere or infringe on these basic rights, as found in our first ten amendments, and given the term the 'Bill of Rights'. Your basic assumption is that government owns you... it does not. It is the right of the American people to throw off any government the becomes tyrannical, as we did with your British government of the time, and it is fully laid out in our Declaration of Independence. It is out most basic difference that people are given rights by their creator, not by government...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

 

[gunthernehmen]

Because your assertion in the first post I have quoted above is that rights are 'natural'.

If you are asserting world-wide 'natural rights' you cannot ignore the whole world outside the US especially countries where those rights do not exist.

Your 'natural rights' were fought for by Washington's Army. The 'rights' that exist in Europe were fought for by US and Allied forces. Much blood was shed for those rights. They aren't 'natural'. They were established by fighting for freedom and need to be constantly defended.

Sure. They fought FOR them. Not to CREATE them.

You have the right to defend yourself. You may or may not have the capability to do so against nature, muggers, police or governments, but that doesn't diminish your right to try. It simply affects the degree to which you might succeed.

The people in the places you mention also have those rights. It may be that the deck is so stacked against them that they dare not even TRY, but that still doesn't alter their essential right to do so. (to try, that is)

 

[oggbashan]

You have a total and European misunderstanding of the nature of 'rights'. They are inherent, and 'natural'. The fact that we had to fight to exercise those rights does not diminish the fact they are inate to every human being, and the fact your government makes no such promise to protect them is sad, but our Constitution forms a promise by our government not to interfere or infringe on these basic rights, as found in our first ten amendments, and given the term the 'Bill of Rights'.

You are quoting from the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

The statements about rights in the Declaration of Independence were revolutionary at the time - and bullshit. They didn't apply to slaves or Native Americans (or women!).

The UK constitution provides rights. They just aren't in a single document nor are they the same across all parts of the UK. There was a right NOT to be a slave which predated 1776. The UK 'rights' predated the Norman Conquest of 1066. Some of them had to be reclaimed in Magna Carta and stated again when William and Mary came to the throne as constitutional monarchs.

But the 'rights' in the US do not apply across the world despite the UN Declaration.

The 'rights' you think are natural and inalienable were claimed by warfare and maintained by warfare. Large parts of the world do not have them and some have NEVER had them.

 

[oggbashan]

Sure. They fought FOR them. Not to CREATE them.

You have the right to defend yourself. You may or may not have the capability to do so against nature, muggers, police or governments, but that doesn't diminish your right to try. It simply affects the degree to which you might succeed.

The people in the places you mention also have those rights. It may be that the deck is so stacked against them that they dare not even TRY, but that still doesn't alter their essential right to do so. (to try, that is)

The people in those places do NOT have rights. Their governments are seen as legitimate by the US even though those governments prevent the people from having human rights.

In China and Russia the people have in theory got rights. In practice the people have as many rights as they had under the Chinese Emperors and the Russian Tsars - fuck all! In some other countries they don't even pretend to give people rights.

 

[coachdb18]

You are quoting from the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

The statements about rights in the Declaration of Independence were revolutionary at the time - and bullshit. They didn't apply to slaves or Native Americans (or women!).

The UK constitution provides rights. They just aren't in a single document nor are they the same across all parts of the UK. There was a right NOT to be a slave which predated 1776. The UK 'rights' predated the Norman Conquest of 1066. Some of them had to be reclaimed in Magna Carta and stated again when William and Mary came to the throne as constitutional monarchs.

But the 'rights' in the US do not apply across the world despite the UN Declaration.

The 'rights' you think are natural and inalienable were claimed by warfare and maintained by warfare. Large parts of the world do not have them and some have NEVER had them.

There is a difference between inalienable and unalienable. We hold the truth to be that all human beings have those rights innately, and government can and does become tyrannical, but the taking of those rights only makes them the obstacle to the rights already possessed, not the dispenser of them. To have to fight for our rights does not diminish the fact that they are ours to fight for, and the government is beyond its bounds to deny them, making them tyrannical by definition and subject to legitimate overthrow by the people subjected to them.

 

[gunthernehmen]

You are quoting from the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

The statements about rights in the Declaration of Independence were revolutionary at the time - and bullshit. They didn't apply to slaves or Native Americans (or women!).

The UK constitution provides rights. They just aren't in a single document nor are they the same across all parts of the UK. There was a right NOT to be a slave which predated 1776. The UK 'rights' predated the Norman Conquest of 1066. Some of them had to be reclaimed in Magna Carta and stated again when William and Mary came to the throne as constitutional monarchs.

But the 'rights' in the US do not apply across the world despite the UN Declaration.

The 'rights' you think are natural and inalienable were claimed by warfare and maintained by warfare. Large parts of the world do not have them and some have NEVER had them.

The crimes that England committed against the people of Africa or the Indians here are not on our hands. We fought to get free of England and we spent the next hundred years cleaning up their mess. And now another century or more making amends for something that was done by the previous management.

None of which has the slightest to do with our natural rights...

 

[oggbashan]

There is a difference between inalienable and unalienable. We hold the truth to be that all human beings have those rights innately, and government can and does become tyrannical, but the taking of those rights only makes them the obstacle to the rights already possessed, not the dispenser of them. To have to fight for our rights does not diminish the fact that they are ours to fight for, and the government is beyond its bounds to deny them, making them tyrannical by definition and subject to legitimate overthrow by the people subjected to them.

Again - You are quoting from the US Declaration of Independence. While it was valid in the US it has no relevance elsewhere. At the time only France accepted it because it suited them to do so.

The French Rights of Man after 1789 was far more significant in the world history of rights than the US Declaration.

But neither of them stop governments from killing their own people.

 

[oggbashan]

The crimes that England committed against the people of Africa or the Indians here are not on our hands. We fought to get free of England and we spent the next hundred years cleaning up their mess. And now another century or more making amends for something that was done by the previous management.

None of which has the slightest to do with our natural rights...

Are you claiming that the post 1776 United States treated Native Americans and slaves fairly, legitimately and respected their rights?

If so, you are more blinkered than most.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Are you claiming that the post 1776 United States treated Native Americans and slaves fairly, legitimately and respected their rights?

If so, you are more blinkered than most.

Not at all, although most of the slaves came here under the rule of England. Are you claiming the Indians were NOT cheated or killed as desired prior to 1776?

Yes, the US government violated the rights of the Indians countless times. Again, that doesn't mean they didn't have them. Stop being racist.

 

[oggbashan]

Not at all, although most of the slaves came here under the rule of England. Are you claiming the Indians were NOT cheated or killed as desired prior to 1776?

Yes, the US government violated the rights of the Indians countless times. Again, that doesn't mean they didn't have them. Stop being racist.

If these rights are 'natural' and guaranteed by the US government - please tell me how those rights are working for Extraordinary Rendition and detainees at GITMO.

 

[coachdb18]

Are you claiming that the post 1776 United States treated Native Americans and slaves fairly, legitimately and respected their rights?

If so, you are more blinkered than most.

Are you contending that humans have no rights, and therefore all governments are legitimate, including Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia? Because if humans have no inate rights, and they only extend from government, then any government can legitimately institute slavery and colonialism, as yours did.

And if humans have no rights, what would anyone be fighting for? Any overthrow of government would be automatically an illegal action against whatever state exists to control them, with no right to rebel. That seems to me to be the perfect reason why EVERYONE should own an assault rifle, that freedom only comes at the point of a gun?

 

[coachdb18]

If these rights are 'natural' and guaranteed by the US government - please tell me how those rights are working for Extraordinary Rendition and detainees at GITMO.

It's why they get a publicly provided legal defense, and the presumption of nnocence in a court of law....

 

[Blue]

Eugh
Your rights are a set of specific actions and processes that most of society has agreed are off the table for debate, they cannot be legally altered without massive support. It is a given society looking out for its own interests and establishing an agreeable moral framework for how that society is to be governed. They are not a natural construct, they are a technological invention.

None of our rights existed prior to their legislation because that's what a right is: legal protection for a certain thing you can do or has been agreed you deserve. It is not some sort of unalienable god-given moral construct that is objectively wrong to violate. We don't posses some unknown type of baryonic matter that necessarily makes a murderers life worse for removing that matter from its host or something.

I can kill somebody for fun and that is only 'wrong' and 'a violation of that persons right to live' in our societies' current status quo and perception of morality and the rights that we bestow on each other to reflect those morals. It does not objectively matter whether that person I killed lived or died and my act of killing them is not morally reprehensible from the perspective of some great universal grand scheme of things, because no such thing exists. The universe and its mechanics are amoral and not bound by an ethical framework.

 

[KimGordon67]

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

Um ... the mass shooting figure is higher than the dying-by-lightning strike figure. This means you're MORE likely to die from lightning.

You're not a Coach alt, are you. Because that's the sort of misreading of stats he engages in quite a bit.

 

[Blue]

It's why they get a publicly provided legal defense, and the presumption of nnocence in a court of law....

GITMO detainees are not tried nor are investigations into their alleged criminal wrongdoings performed, nor are they provided legal protection by the US gov. That's how a German journalist kidnapped by Afghan warlords and sold to the CIA was wrongfully detained and tortured by the US in Gitmo for years before being released, despite the governments assumption that he was not a terrorist.