Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[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.

 

[My I]

For a minute I thought the thread was back on subject. Sorry for the confusion. Carry on.

 

[BotanyBoy]

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?

Triggered? LOL If that's what you call responding to your stupidity then sure.

I never said or even suggested that it wasn't needed.

If that is your argument then all prisoners in US jails have the right to kill their guards and break out.

Rarely, but every now and then they do have that right for the simple fact that they take it.

That's as close to a "natural" right as it gets...the "rights" of the jungle. Does the lion have a "right" to that zebras ass?

Maybe...maybe not...well see how things work out but it doesn't look good for the zebras ya know what I'm sayin???

Absolutely ... as happens spookily often, we actually agree on this point. I'm (here) arguing against the notion of natural rights, which people like Coach and now whats-his-face - the other guy - keep invoking. Elsewhere I've argued against guns being an actual right - where obviously you and I would continue to differ.

Yupperz

Yea, I understand the concept of them as I think you do too but it's not more relevant a "right" with regard to civilized law as the "law of the jungle" is.

Respectfully

 

[Hypoxia]

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

The perfect permanent solution for shoplifters, jaywalkers, blasphemers, the flatulent, and accordionists. We don't have criminal organ banks aka Larry Niven so straight execution will do.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

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

Sometimes. If someone's drunk and disorderly, shooting them only makes them more disorderly, and they're still drunk.

 

[KimGordon67]

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.

So the 'right to a speedy trial' and the 'right to the presumption of innocence' are naturally occurring phenomenon? Wow ... interesting.

 

[KimGordon67]

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?

FFS - no one said 'rights' weren't beyond governments - they are. That doesn't make them 'natural' though ... you're imply the hierarchical order is 'people --> government --> God'.

 

[Hypoxia]

Sometimes. If someone's drunk and disorderly, shooting them only makes them more disorderly, and they're still drunk.

That's if you couldn't make a headshot, and you left the 12-gauge at home. So now they're still alive and disorderly, and likely pissed-off by the report of your .32 peashooter. What a pickle. What's a civilian to do then?

* Don't hang around with drunk & disorderly folk in the first place.
* Gladiators used a net to trap the dude and a trident to poke-em.
* A big sloppy kiss will distract the target as you slap-on handcuffs.
* Dump a bucket-load of live scorpions on their head. Big fuckers.
* Tear-gas grenades are useful, but be sure to carry your mask.
* A taser holstered on each hip like Roy Fucking Rogers gone tech.
* A glue gun. Squirt-em with Instant Glue so they stick to the wall.
* Let your security team handle the annoyance with professionalism.

There's always another way.

 

[KimGordon67]

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..

Good grief - I was basing my observation on the figures YOU provided, that were carefully bolded in the quote of YOUR post. If you're going to make an argument based on specific definitions of data, and talk about 'lightning strikes' in a thread in which almost everything else is about 'deaths', then make those things very clear. Don't retrospectively introduce them into your discussion. And don't put figures in your quote to make some point, and then say 'oh, but those weren't actually the figures I was talking about'. How is that even a sensible debate?

 

[KimGordon67]

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.

No, quite often humans aren't free to fight for their rights - that's a clear injustice. But it's not an injustice because that's a contravention of some 'natural' right - it's an injustice because it contravenes what, in the world of the 21st century, we have, at a very general level, agreed constitutes a 'right', and a set of 'rights' that everyone 'should' have.

Only the US and two other countries have decided that in respect of guns. No where else in either human society or the animal kingdom are 'guns' seen as a naturallly occurring right. Yes, in the US you have the 'right' to have a gun, because the Constitution. That doesn't make it either a 'human' right, nor a 'natural' right - just a right that your culture has decided exists and that is protected by your government.

I guess this does mean that gun ownership is a 'right', but when you state that, you need to be quite clear its a very specifically contextual right - not really how we usually think of rights, but whatever.

 

[gunthernehmen]

No, quite often humans aren't free to fight for their rights - that's a clear injustice. But it's not an injustice because that's a contravention of some 'natural' right - it's an injustice because it contravenes what, in the world of the 21st century, we have, at a very general level, agreed constitutes a 'right', and a set of 'rights' that everyone 'should' have.

Only the US and two other countries have decided that in respect of guns. No where else in either human society or the animal kingdom are 'guns' seen as a naturallly occurring right. Yes, in the US you have the 'right' to have a gun, because the Constitution. That doesn't make it either a 'human' right, nor a 'natural' right - just a right that your culture has decided exists and that is protected by your government.

I guess this does mean that gun ownership is a 'right', but when you state that, you need to be quite clear its a very specifically contextual right - not really how we usually think of rights, but whatever.

Everyone is ALWAYS free to fight for what they perceive to be right. Their success in that endeavor varies according to the artificial constraints placed on them by their government, church or society. People living in some tin pot dictatorship in Africa probably won't do so well.

I've actually met and spoke with one of those college students that faced down tanks in Tianenman Square. You know what he told me? He'd wished at the time he and the others could have had access to some guns. He acknowledged it wouldn't have made much difference in the end but it was pretty scary standing there wondering if they were going to run him over with a tank.

So don't fucking tell me that people in oppressed parts of the world don't need guns since they have no right to them anyway. They should just continue being oppressed.

Go ahead and pontificate from your "safe" little place about what ought to be according to whatever your name is. What you feel about rights is irrelevant. You have no say in the matter. You gave it away.

Jesus Christ, I can understand why My I or the others lose their tempers with you and call names. You're willfully ignorant. A child can understand the concept of fighting for their rights but you signed yours away in some stupid social contract that you don't even understand.

 

[KimGordon67]

Everyone is ALWAYS free to fight for what they perceive to be right. Their success in that endeavor varies according to the artificial constraints placed on them by their government, church or society. People living in some tin pot dictatorship in Africa probably won't do so well.

I've actually met and spoke with one of those college students that faced down tanks in Tianenman Square. You know what he told me? He'd wished at the time he and the others could have had access to some guns. He acknowledged it wouldn't have made much difference in the end but it was pretty scary standing there wondering if they were going to run him over with a tank.

So don't fucking tell me that people in oppressed parts of the world don't need guns since they have no right to them anyway. They should just continue being oppressed.

Go ahead and pontificate from your "safe" little place about what ought to be according to whatever your name is. What you feel about rights is irrelevant. You have no say in the matter.

Jesus Christ I can understand why My I or the others lose their tempers with you and call names. You're willfully ignorant. A child can understand the concept of fighting for their rights but you signed yours away in some s stupid social contract that you don't even understand.

See the bolded point - when did I ever say that. When were we discussing 'oppressed places in the world'? Saying something isn't a 'right' isn't the same as saying people might need that thing in certain circumstances to achieve certain goals. I don't have the 'right' to a car, but not having one would make getting to work well nigh impossible for me ... etc etc. I'm sure you get my point.

Yes, I guess technically your first paragraph is correct ... but by that definition we're all free to do anything at all - all freedom is possible within whatever constraints there happen to be. Significant levels of constraint, however, tend to problematise the notion of 'freedom'.

Actually, I argue pretty logically and consistently. You and My_I are the ones that keep going off on tangents and seem unable to follow through a train of thought.

 

[gunthernehmen]

See the bolded point - when did I ever say that. When were we discussing 'oppressed places in the world'?

Yes, I guess technically your first paragraph is correct ... but by that definition we're all free to do anything at all - all freedom is possible within whatever constraints there happen to be. Significant levels of constraint, however, tend to problematise the notion of 'freedom'.

Actually, I argue pretty logically and consistently. You and My_I are the ones that keep going off on tangents and seem unable to follow through a train of thought.

You make my point quite will.

You are a willfully ignorant fool.

 

[KimGordon67]

You make my point quite will.

You are a willfully ignorant fool.

*Sigh* ... 'freedom to do things' is not the same as 'rights'. Following through the logic of the argument you're now making, everything is a 'right' because we're free to do everything (if we ignore the various constraints there are on that freedom).

You're just making no sense. I understand that you think you are, but trust, you're not.

 

[Hypoxia]

No, quite often humans aren't free to fight for their rights - that's a clear injustice. But it's not an injustice because that's a contravention of some 'natural' right - it's an injustice because it contravenes what, in the world of the 21st century, we have, at a very general level, agreed constitutes a 'right', and a set of 'rights' that everyone 'should' have.

Only the US and two other countries have decided that in respect of guns. No where else in either human society or the animal kingdom are 'guns' seen as a naturallly occurring right. Yes, in the US you have the 'right' to have a gun, because the Constitution. That doesn't make it either a 'human' right, nor a 'natural' right - just a right that your culture has decided exists and that is protected by your government.

I guess this does mean that gun ownership is a 'right', but when you state that, you need to be quite clear its a very specifically contextual right - not really how we usually think of rights, but whatever.

Those other two nations' constitutions balance firearms rights with restrictions. In USA, Enforcing the "well-regulated militia" clause would impose similar limits.

What are the possible origin of 'rights'?

* A merciful deity (take your pick) granted them, but the wicked interfere.
* A thoughtful gov't (take your pick) granted them and can revoke them.
* As humans evolved, so did their souls, minds, and rights. It's Darwinian.
* Rights are the product of struggle. They're only taken, never given.
. "...the rights that we grabbed with our own bleeding hands..." (Marat/Sade)
* They're whatever the local power structure lets you get away with.

Observable natural rights are limited. You have the rights to kill or be killed, to eat or be eaten, to exist until you no longer exist. The rest is theology.

 

[KimGordon67]

Those other two nations' constitutions balance firearms rights with restrictions. In USA, Enforcing the "well-regulated militia" clause would impose similar limits.

What are the possible origin of 'rights'?

* A merciful deity (take your pick) granted them, but the wicked interfere.
* A thoughtful gov't (take your pick) granted them and can revoke them.
* As humans evolved, so did their souls, minds, and rights. It's Darwinian.
* Rights are the product of struggle. They're only taken, never given.
. "...the rights that we grabbed with our own bleeding hands..." (Marat/Sade)
* They're whatever the local power structure lets you get away with.

Observable natural rights are limited. You have the rights to kill or be killed, to eat or be eaten, to exist until you no longer exist. The rest is theology.

I don't know if even those things are 'natural rights', or more something like instincts, things people/animals do out of a sense of self-preservation.

For me, I tend to think of 'rights' as being something which exceed the power of individual governments, but I guess I'm look at it from the perspective of the Declaration of Human Rights. ... but then again, I guess there are some things that I assume are a right because they're enshrined in our specific law - e.g. I would say I have the 'right' to half of the property that's held within my marriage.

Interesting ... but I still don't think there's such a thing as 'natural' rights.

Is it just me, or do a fair few Americans have some sort of cultural antipathy towards the government?

 

[Hypoxia]

*Sigh* ... 'freedom to do things' is not the same as 'rights'. Following through the logic of the argument you're now making, everything is a 'right' because we're free to do everything (if we ignore the various constraints there are on that freedom).

Rights imply responsibility, a social contract. Freedom (do whatcha wanna do!) (aka nothing left to lose) has only constraints.

We are FREE to do whatever we want till, up to physical limits. I'm free to shout till my voice wears out. We have a RIGHT to do what we want until we're stopped morally. I've no right to shout FIRE in a packed pub. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. A right to vote is not a right to cheat, etc. Rights are about what we SHOULD do, not what we can get away with.

 

[Hypoxia]

I don't know if even those things are 'natural rights', or more something like instincts, things people/animals do out of a sense of self-preservation.

True, but they're the closest we'll see to "natural rights." I blame human pattern-recognition software.

Is it just me, or do a fair few Americans have some sort of cultural antipathy towards the government?

I've noticed hostility in other nations, too, so it's not only a USA thang. Usually that hostility is justified; the gov't has done some slaughtering. Elsewhere, folks are hostile because they've been propagandized. It's embedded in American national mythology.

Irony arises when rebels against a regime emigrate, build settlements... and setup new govt's. That was the story of the USA Old West. The first things a new town got were a town council, a marshal, a tax assessor, and magistrates, all subsidized by the usual saloon-brothel keepers and other greedy capitalist pigs er I mean merchants. That's how social orders grow.

 

[KimGordon67]

True, but they're the closest we'll see to "natural rights." I blame human pattern-recognition software.


I've noticed hostility in other nations, too, so it's not only a USA thang. Usually that hostility is justified; the gov't has done some slaughtering. Elsewhere, folks are hostile because they've been propagandized. It's embedded in American national mythology.

Irony arises when rebels against a regime emigrate, build settlements... and setup new govt's. That was the story of the USA Old West. The first things a new town got were a town council, a marshal, a tax assessor, and magistrates, all subsidized by the usual saloon-brothel keepers and other greedy capitalist pigs er I mean merchants. That's how social orders grow.

That makes sense. I know I do need to remember that the GB isn't a representative sample, but there seems to a fairly constant thread of 'the government' vs 'right thinking people' in here. It's the only place I see people argue that you might to protect yourself from your government.

 

[Blue]

That makes sense. I know I do need to remember that the GB isn't a representative sample, but there seems to a fairly constant thread of 'the government' vs 'right thinking people' in here. It's the only place I see people argue that you might to protect yourself from your government.

Decades of the right wing pointing to autocratic states and saying "look, this is why you need all your guns! In case that ever happens here." While they cash their campaign donation cheque from Heckler & Koch and the NRA.

 

[oggbashan]

What makes me sad is the insistent claims that 'rights' are natural or god-given.

The Declaration of Independence was and is a wonderful document. It stated what those rebelling against Westminster government believed.

The rights they claimed were an ideal of what they wanted. They were prepared to fight and die to make them a reality. They did, and won. Only then were the rights they had stated possible - bought with the blood of men who died to make those rights possible.

In the Second World War Roosevelt followed by the Allies said they were fighting for Four Freedoms:

freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from want—as their basic war aims.

Those Four Freedoms were the basis for the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

The Four Freedoms and the Declaration cost millions of lives to secure. Asserting that they are 'natural' diminishes the sacrifices made to establish them.

We should always remember that the rights we enjoy are only possible because people died so we can have them.

We may argue (and do!) about the rights in the US Constitution but please remember how much it cost in lives to establish those rights. We should be grateful for the price paid, not just assuming that we have those rights because they are 'natural'.

 

[BotanyBoy]

What makes me sad is the insistent claims that 'rights' are natural or god-given.

The Declaration of Independence was and is a wonderful document. It stated what those rebelling against Westminster government believed.

The rights they claimed were an ideal of what they wanted. They were prepared to fight and die to make them a reality. They did, and won. Only then were the rights they had stated possible - bought with the blood of men who died to make those rights possible.

In the Second World War Roosevelt followed by the Allies said they were fighting for Four Freedoms:

freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from want—as their basic war aims.

Those Four Freedoms were the basis for the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

The Four Freedoms and the Declaration cost millions of lives to secure. Asserting that they are 'natural' diminishes the sacrifices made to establish them.

We should always remember that the rights we enjoy are only possible because people died so we can have them.

We may argue (and do!) about the rights in the US Constitution but please remember how much it cost in lives to establish those rights. We should be grateful for the price paid, not just assuming that we have those rights because they are 'natural'.

While I agree with you 100%.

I must point out one thing.....we don't have those rights because our people sacrificed themselves for it. Even thought that was the price we paid it's only part of it. The other half and often unmentioned part of that cost was the lives of the other side. We 'defended' our rights not by dying, but by killing those who threaten their rights.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country." - Gen. Patton.