Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[oggbashan]

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?

I am stating that NOT all humans have rights. Those that do have won them by fighting for them, and many of the people that DO have rights have them because the United States and its allies fought for them and continue to fight for them. There is nothing natural about having rights. They are hard-won.

As stated by James Clavell in his novel Shogun "The only justification for rebellion is success".

 

[KimGordon67]

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.

No. By usually universal agreement, we have constructed 'rights' as something that, we agree, are beyond government powers - hence the Declaration of Human Rights, not the Declaration of Rights That Only Exist For People Who Have Nice Governments. They're only protected by people with nice governments, but as a people (at an international level) we've basically said 'yep, those look like things that everyone, no matter what, should have'.

 

[coachdb18]

I am stating that NOT all humans have rights. Those that do have won them by fighting for them, and many of the people that DO have rights have them because the United States and its allies fought for them and continue to fight for them. There is nothing natural about having rights. They are hard-won.

As stated by James Clavell in his novel Shogun "The only justification for rebellion is success".

As the point of this thread is 'Why does ANYONE need an assault rifle', you seem to be making the case that EVERYONE requires an assault rifle, and without it they have no rights.

 

[oggbashan]

That line of reasoning flows from your contention of having no rights other than what you can fight for, my contention is that everyone has rights and that includes to a speedy trial, and to the presumption of innocence, as previously stated. In your system, only the government having rights leads to immediate execution, My Lai style. Not acceptable to American and civilized society. You feel you can occupy any land and automatically become sovereign, we see colonialism as an affront to human rights.

And I agree with that. It is NOT acceptable to America and civilised countries. But there are countries that behave as England (and the US and other now civilised countries) acted in the past.

Russia has acted like that in Georgia and Ukraine. China has occupied Tibet. It still happens. The US and UK have changed. Some countries and their governments haven't.

 

[KimGordon67]

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?

Gah ... you're always so much better at explaining this stuff than me!

 

[coachdb18]

My question to this latest tack that people have no rights, that all rights belong to government, who institutes government to become the giver of rights? And before there was government, what was the status of human rights if there was no government to drop those rights on the people? Why would anyone ever constitute a government that only stripped them of something they had without and before government?

 

[oggbashan]

As the point of this thread is 'Why does ANYONE need an assault rifle', you seem to be making the case that EVERYONE requires an assault rifle, and without it they have no rights.

No. I'm not stating that. I'm saying that the rights US and UK citizens now have were defended by force. Unfortunately, we need armed forces to defend our rights, not individual citizens with guns.

Rights, including the right to live, are not universal or natural. If they were, we wouldn't need armed forces.

Denying the need to protect and defend rights we hold dear diminishes all those who fought and died for the freedom and rights some countries in the world now have.

 

[coachdb18]

No. I'm not stating that. I'm saying that the rights US and UK citizens now have were defended by force. Unfortunately, we need armed forces to defend our rights, not individual citizens with guns.

Rights, including the right to live, are not universal or natural. If they were, we wouldn't need armed forces.

Denying the need to protect and defend rights we hold dear diminishes all those who fought and died for the freedom and rights some countries in the world now have.

Armed forces are government guns, which allow them to do such actions as My Lai and Kent State. The right of the people to defend themselves against government is the principle foundation of the statement, 'shall not be infringed', that it is the governments ability to infringe that the people re protected against.

 

[oggbashan]

My question to this latest tack that people have no rights, that all rights belong to government, who institutes government to become the giver of rights? And before there was government, what was the status of human rights if there was no government to drop those rights on the people? Why would anyone ever constitute a government that only stripped them of something they had without and before government?

You have to go back into history.

The countries that are now the UK, and the US, established governments that protected the rights of their people by establishing laws against murder and other crimes against individuals. Those laws went back into the Dark Ages in England, and further into law in the Roman Empire and Republic.

The ancient laws of the Sumerians made murder a crime.

BUT - there have been governments that insisted that some people had the right to kill other people without appropriate punishment. In France before 1789 a nobleman could kill a peasant and pay a small fine. The King could order anyone's death. After the Revolution, during the Terror, an anonymous denunciation was enough to lead to the guillotine.

In Japan at the time of the Samurai any Samurai could kill a peasant just because he felt like doing it.

You are making the serious error of assuming that all governments represent the will of the people. Many did not. They were the will of the rulers or a ruling elite. Several countries still have governments like that. They are responsible to nobody but themselves.

 

[oggbashan]

Armed forces are government guns, which allow them to do such actions as My Lai and Kent State. The right of the people to defend themselves against government is the principle foundation of the statement, 'shall not be infringed', that it is the governments ability to infringe that the people re protected against.

Yes - in the US.

But that says nothing about 'natural rights'.

 

[coachdb18]

Yes - in the US.

But that says nothing about 'natural rights'.

The US government was the first to recognize that natural rights exist,, and served to promise they would be protected. The rest of the world simply operates in violation of human rights to the extent it can get away with without armed rebellion.

From this we can only surmise that all government is nothing more to humans than a necessary evil, and must constantly be held in check by armed readiness of the oppressed.

 

[Hypoxia]

Firearms Valley: A small village in Italy produces 40 percent of the world’s handguns, rifles and other small arms.

GARDONE VAL TROMPIA, Italy — Tucked away in a picturesque valley in the Italian Alps is the birthplace of most of Europe’s small firearms — and Al Pacino’s gun in “Scarface.”

Surrounded by greenery and — key to its main industry — iron mines, Gardone Val Trompia, with around 10,000 inhabitants, is the Italian, European and world capital of firearms, producing 70 percent of the small arms (used for sport and hunting) used in the EU and 40 percent of those used worldwide.

In 2016, the valley’s gunmakers sent 395,000 firearms to the United States alone.

So much for Buy American.

 

[oggbashan]

The US government was the first to recognize that natural rights exist,, and served to promise they would be protected. The rest of the world simply operates in violation of human rights to the extent it can get away with without armed rebellion.

From this we can only surmise that all government is nothing more to humans than a necessary evil, and must constantly be held in check by armed readiness of the oppressed.

The US was the first to ASSERT that natural rights exist.

Many countries, despite the UN Declaration of Human Rights, still don't accept that assertion.

 

[Blue]

The US was the first to ASSERT that natural rights exist.

Many countries, despite the UN Declaration of Human Rights, still don't accept that assertion.

That's not an argument against the existence of natural rights though. The US is still the first and only country to guarantee a person's freedom of expression and that doesn't alone attach any particular meaning to that legislation other than "the US did it first and the others haven't caught on."

 

[gunthernehmen]

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.

Who cares? That would the problem of those individuals affected by it to deal with it. I am responsible for me and certain others as duty and honor require.

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.

No, not Coach alt, although he does make a lot of sense, for the most part.

Regardless, you're mistaken.

Since 1966, there have been just about 1100 deaths attributable to classic "mass shootings". That excludes domestic violence and "gang" activity. (the customary definition, in other words) That's around 22 per year. That figure is actually lower than the 30 people killed each year by lightning. It's also FAR lower than the 270 people that are struck my lightning each year, which was my claim. You can go do the math again if you like. Even if you use Everyclown figures it will come out close to what I laid out.

No. By usually universal agreement, we have constructed 'rights' as something that, we agree, are beyond government powers - hence the Declaration of Human Rights, not the Declaration of Rights That Only Exist For People Who Have Nice Governments. They're only protected by people with nice governments, but as a people (at an international level) we've basically said 'yep, those look like things that everyone, no matter what, should have'.

Sure. If you want to play it that way. Human beings anywhere are free to fight for their rights. That's exactly what I've been saying.

 

[dan_c00000]

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

Now, after triggering you, you're feigning ignorance on the question?

For the 10th time: how many more dead kids is it going to take for you to realize that gun control is needed?

 

[oggbashan]

That's not an argument against the existence of natural rights though. The US is still the first and only country to guarantee a person's freedom of expression and that doesn't alone attach any particular meaning to that legislation other than "the US did it first and the others haven't caught on."

Some of the other countries believed, and some still believe, that what the US said in the Declaration of Independence was nonsense, and dangerous nonsense as well.

Unfortunately, history, including modern history, demonstrates that the US claim of natural rights is for something that does not exist. That is the unpleasant reality.

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is still breached daily.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Now, after triggering you, you're feigning ignorance on the question?

For the 10th time: how many more dead kids is it going to take for you to realize that gun control is needed?

How many more dead kids will it take before "gun free school zones" are acknowledged to be free fire zones for psychotic murderers?

Do you KNOW what most "mass shooters" do as soon as they are countered with an armed person?

They kill themselves. (and Everyclown then counts THAT death toward the 4 vics tally to call it a mass shooting. No, I think they use 3...)

If school staff were lawfully able to carry firearms, that would likely happen a bit earlier, thus... *gasp* saving lives. You know, except for the murderer and who gives a fuck about him?

 

[gunthernehmen]

That's not an argument against the existence of natural rights though. The US is still the first and only country to guarantee a person's freedom of expression and that doesn't alone attach any particular meaning to that legislation other than "the US did it first and the others haven't caught on."

Some of the other countries believed, and some still believe, that what the US said in the Declaration of Independence was nonsense, and dangerous nonsense as well.

Unfortunately, history, including modern history, demonstrates that the US claim of natural rights is for something that does not exist. That is the unpleasant reality.

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is still breached daily.

You do know the DoI doesn't talk at ALL about freedom of expression?

The reason other countries were nervous about it that it made the (correct) claim that governments must be held accountable for their actions against their own citizens and if they didn't live up to the bargain those citizens could kick the government's ass to the curb. (or die trying)

 

[phrodeau]

How many more dead kids will it take before "gun free school zones" are acknowledged to be free fire zones for psychotic murderers?

Do you KNOW what most "mass shooters" do as soon as they are countered with an armed person?

They kill themselves. (and Everyclown then counts THAT death toward the 4 vics tally to call it a mass shooting. No, I think they use 3...)

If school staff were lawfully able to carry firearms, that would likely happen a bit earlier, thus... *gasp* saving lives. You know, except for the murderer and who gives a fuck about him?

There was an armed guard at Parkland, and Nikolas Cruz walked right past him.

 

[gunthernehmen]

There was an armed guard at Parkland, and Nikolas Cruz walked right past him.

There sure was. And he ran and hid around the corner even though he was duty bound to defend those kids. And when the regulars arrived THEY stood around and let the killer slip away. A gun doesn't make someone a hero. It just provides them with a tool to enforce their will.

You might have noticed in the news, a school shooting in Great Mills, Maryland a couple weeks later? The shooter did manage to kill one girl but then the armed school resource officer (same role as the guy in Parkland, but not a coward) arrived and shot him. The murderer also shot (at himself) and died (thankfully).

Sandy Hook. How many kids died there? You know what THAT shooting spree stopped? When the murderer was shot at.

Imagine that. People stop committing their crimes when they get shot!

 

[oggbashan]

You do know the DoI doesn't talk at ALL about freedom of expression?

The reason other countries were nervous about it that it made the (correct) claim that governments must be held accountable for their actions against their own citizens and if they didn't live up to the bargain those citizens could kick the government's ass to the curb. (or die trying)

That only applied after the Nuremberg Trials. That established the NEW principle.

 

[gunthernehmen]

That only applied after the Nuremberg Trials. That established the NEW principle.

That probably makes sense to you.

 

[oggbashan]

That probably makes sense to you.

The fact that it doesn't to you is understandable.

 

[gunthernehmen]

The fact that it doesn't to you is understandable.

I take great comfort in the fact that you make no sense to me. I mean that sincerely. No joke.