Do You Own a Gun?

[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.

[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.

[TheMercenary]

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

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

[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.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

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?

You have just proved that the people have the power to create and enforce their own rights. You have not proven natural rights, just that they can be enforced by the people.

Originally Posted by Dagney

What kind of sneakers do you wear? Where do all of your clothes come from? Are you positive that something you purchased through normal trade (supported by the almighty evil capitalism) was not created at the hands of someone who was working against their will, forced into situations that they you would otherwise consider slavery?

I personally don't hurt anyone but it is inevidable that I am part of the system that does.

In order to say that you think capitalism is wrong and that you want no parts of it, I would strongly suggest that you be ready to remove yourself from the grid totally - because the more you benefit from it - and as much as you may hate to admit to yourself that you do....really, you do. I heard being naked in a cave with only yourself for company is a wonderful way to live.

I am part of the system and I can't realisically get away from it except trying to change it. You can say the "if you don't like it just leave" line but that is a weak argument because it is unrealistic.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Yznhymr]

I agree with you as far as individual rights are concerned, but try and tell that to this person...

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Radar

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

That's where governments come in and regulate the use of dangerous things.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That's where governments come in and regulate the use of dangerous things.

The valid role and scope of government does not include protecting us from the use of dangerous things. It does not include protecting us from ourselves. It does not include "regulating" things that have the potential to harm. It is to protect us from hostile invasions, and to protect us from harming each other (which has nothing to do with my previous sentence). The government is here to prevent harmful actions, not devices that someone might use to carry out harmful actions.