Do You Own a Gun?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I forgot to reply to this earlier but radar and rage, read this carefully then re-read it about five more times because you two don't seem to get it.

I believe rights are made by society and that is what helps keep us in order. I follow and respect most rights that are made by our society. I will never hurt anyone, make someone do something against their will like slavery, or force my ideals upon anyone else.

If you do not understand what I just said, don't bother because you never will.

I have always understood what your pathetic beliefs are. They are just based in stupidity, ignorance, and have no basis in fact or logic. They are completely stupid. Rights don't come from society. You can claim that all you like, but every time you say it, you are lying and I'll call you on it. Rights weren't created by people; every time you say it, you're lying and I'll call you on it. Rights can't be taken away, given away, or voted away; every time you claim otherwise, you are lying and I'll call you on it. If you don't understand this, you're a waste of human flesh and don't deserve to live...but we knew that already.

Your beliefs are irrelevant. You've been presented with FACTS and you still deny them. This is pure stupidity, dishonesty, and willful ignorance. There are people who believe Hitler was a nice guy, but those people are no more or less full of shit than you. There are people who think raping children is ok. They are no more or less full of shit than you.

[piercehawkeye45]

My views are shit? That is why the majority of philosophers agree with me? Just because you use your views political gain doesn't mean they are right.



The famous philosopher and child prodigy Jeremy Bentham once said,
"Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense -- nonsense upon stilts."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

So I am obviously not the only one who thinks this and remember, this guy was a child prodigy.



How can I prove that natural rights do not exist? They are not enforced by nature. A natural law enforced by nature. An example of natural law is the speed of light. No matter what you do, you can not change the speed of light in a vacuum. I can break one of your "natural rights" by killing you, taking away your property, or taking away your guns. How does nature enforce this? Nature does nothing so it isn't a natural law.



Here are two essays backing me up:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-rights.htm
http://eckenrodehouse.net/anarchism/html/secF7.html



I have given you links and sources backing me up. You have given me nothing except insults.

[Undertoad]

Radar your #678 has to be the worst-argued post I have seen here in a long time... maybe ever. There is not one coherent point in it and every single sentence is pure ad hominem invective. Weak mojo man!

If you have a case for your stance you should bring it out. If you don't, you should reconsider your stance, even though to do so is abhorrent to you.

You won't win here by calling people's opposition dumb or dishonest. You'll get called on it.

[Ibby]

Radar, you have yet to show or prove that rights are 'natural' or, for that matter, facts. Asserting that something is a fact does not make it so. I'm not saying that they aren't; I'm just saying, you have yet to make a case for them being facts of any nature.

[TheMercenary]

On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs
(From the book, On Combat, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman)

http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm

[Radar]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

My views are shit? That is why the majority of philosophers agree with me? Just because you use your views political gain doesn't mean they are right.



The famous philosopher and child prodigy Jeremy Bentham once said,
"Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense -- nonsense upon stilts."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

So I am obviously not the only one who thinks this and remember, this guy was a child prodigy.



How can I prove that natural rights do not exist? They are not enforced by nature. A natural law enforced by nature. An example of natural law is the speed of light. No matter what you do, you can not change the speed of light in a vacuum. I can break one of your "natural rights" by killing you, taking away your property, or taking away your guns. How does nature enforce this? Nature does nothing so it isn't a natural law.



Here are two essays backing me up:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-rights.htm
http://eckenrodehouse.net/anarchism/html/secF7.html



I have given you links and sources backing me up. You have given me nothing except insults.

Natural rights do exist, and they are enforced by nature. Also, nearly every philosopher who has ever existed on the planet agrees with this FACT. These include Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Locke, Jefferson, and if you believe in Jesus of Nazareth, him too.

Only a few idiots and fools on the fringe disagree. That includes everyone you've listed.

Here are some articles and pamphlets by sane and intelligent people.

http://jim.com/spooner.htm

http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Radar, you have yet to show or prove that rights are 'natural' or, for that matter, facts. Asserting that something is a fact does not make it so. I'm not saying that they aren't; I'm just saying, you have yet to make a case for them being facts of any nature.

If you state that you are alive, it is indeed a fact. Asserting this fact re-enforces it. I have made my case very well, and have proven for a fact that human rights are part of natural law and they exist beyond any question.

[lumberjim]

source

The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a set of human rights that are in some sense fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered. They are by definition, rights retained by the people. Inalienable rights may be defined as natural rights or human rights, but natural rights are not required by definition to be inalienable.

An alternative argument claims that the idea of inalienable rights is derived from the freeborn rights claimed by the Englishman John Lilburne in his conflict with both the monarchy of King Charles I and the military dictatorship of the republic governed by Oliver Cromwell. Lilburne (known as Freeborn John) defined freeborn rights as being rights that every human being is born with, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or by human law.
Civil rights and civil liberties are different. Civil rights are given to the people by the government. Civil liberties are god-given rights.

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

Criticism

The concept of inalienable rights was criticized by Jeremy Bentham and Edmund Burke as groundless. Bentham and Burke, writing in the eighteenth century, claimed that rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and that neither of these can provide anything inalienable. (See Bentham's "Critique of the Doctrine of Inalienable, Natural Rights", and Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France"). Keeping with shift in thinking in the 19th century, Bentham famously dismissed the idea of natural rights as "nonsense on stilts".

here's the thing: while governments have the power to recognize and uphold our rights, or to take them from us....WE hold the power to uphold or overthrow the government.

this make the rights natural, and not bestowable. get it?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Any power bestowed on you by a governing/ruling body, can be revoked by the same.
That's the difference between a privilege and a right, rights can not be taken away, privileges can.
If you think right and privilege are interchangeable, tell the state you have a right to drive a motor vehicle.

[Happy Monkey]

Name a state that you have a right to do anything, with no society-enforced caveats.

The difference between cars and guns is that cars were invented after 1787, and they didn't think they needed to bother ensuring a person's right to ride a horse. And with both cars and guns, it's important to ensure that the user knows what they're doing and can be trusted.

[Radar]

Trusted by whom? by the government?

The natural state of human life is freedom, and civilized people give the benefit of the doubt and presume people are responsible in their own lives until they prove otherwise.

[Happy Monkey]

Prove to whom? The government?

Of course.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The difference between cars and guns is that cars were invented after 1787, and they didn't think they needed to bother ensuring a person's right to ride a horse.

There are thousands of things they could have mentioned, but they knew without the right to bear arms to insure peoples freedom, everything else would be a moot point.

[Aliantha]

OK, just for the sake of the argument, why don't we list what we might percieve as a natural right. We've had this one before (sorry to sound like a one trick pony, but anyway... ) but I'm not sure where. I'll start things off.

Natural right number one: The right to breath.

[Radar]

It's not a matter of what we "perceive" to be our rights. Our rights can't be listed because the list would be near infinite in length. You have the right to chew gum (if you've obtained the gun honestly), you have the right to walk back and forth across your own property, you have the right to do jumping jacks on your own property, etc.

We have the right to do ANYTHING we want as long as our actions don't PHYSICALLY harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.

We don't have the right to physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.