Will the Second Amendment survive?

[Radar]

It should be worded like this so people don't try to misconstrue it as they are now.

All individuals are born with the right to keep and bear arms without limitations on their number, type, or kind of ammo and this right will NEVER be limited, restricted, or kept track of by any level of government. This right will be defended at all costs by the federal government and if it is violated, the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government will cease to exist.

[Aliantha]

That's true jinx. Perhaps the problem is that the constitution is based on a philosophy or philosophical thought, and I guess it's pretty easy to see that if philosophy is a way of thinking about things, then it follows that people will interpret what is written differently.

[Radar]

The philosophy behind the Constitution is known as libertarianism. It affords people maximum liberty at minimum cost. It means all power comes from the people and is retained by the people. It means government has only those specific powers granted to it by the people and that these powers will never be above those of individual Americans.

Some thought our rights were so self-evident that nobody would dare contest them and saw no need for a bill of rights. We can see how wrong they were. Now we have anti-gun nutjobs claiming that government should have all the guns....the exact opposite of the philosophy of our founders and the opposite of what they had risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to defend.

[piercehawkeye45]

No, I believe that society determines how important a single right is. For example, American society places the right to bear arms as much more important than British society does. Western society has the right to free speech as much more important than Islamic society does.

Rights work in basically the same way as morals do. To a single person, rights and morals mean nothing because you need a second a party for them to have any meaning. But once you get a society together, rights and morals are needed for that society to survive and just like a society will place special emphasis on some morals, it will also place special emphasis on some rights.

To think that our society has perfected unalienable rights while all others has not is foolish and it makes much more sense that we just embrace the rights that our society emphasizes as the "true rights".

Because honestly, how do we know which rights are the "true rights"? How did we discover them? The only way that makes sense is that we took the ones that benefited us the most and made them "true rights" just like religion has taken morals and tried to make them absolute.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

No, I believe that society determines how important a single right is. For example, American society places the right to bear arms as much more important than British society does. Western society has the right to free speech as much more important than Islamic society does.

If society determines our rights then there can be no such thing as human rights violations then, right? If a particular society decides that they don't want any filthy jews mucking up their gene pool, then jews have no right to life there, correct?

Did you go thru public schools here in the US pierce?

[regular.joe]

That's a lot of reading to figure something out that is supposed to be self evident.

[Radar]

Some people are stupid enough to deny their own existence. They need things drummed into their empty little skulls. For 99.9999999% of the earth rights are self-evident, tangible, and real and have nothing to do with the society in which we live, public morality, or the number of people who happen to be there. For the retarded, insane, poorly educated, or purposely obtuse others, it must be spoon fed.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The word "society" immediately translates to "majority rule", in my mind.
Majority rule is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to avoid.
The Bill of Rights spells out, the majority are NOT allowed to infringe upon, or dictate to, any minority.... even a minority of one.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The word "society" immediately translates to "majority rule", in my mind.
Majority rule is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to avoid.
The Bill of Rights spells out, the majority are NOT allowed to infringe upon, or dictate to, any minority.... even a minority of one.

Lets be realistic, the majority are not allowed to infringe on a minority as long as the majority allows them too. If a gay man wants to get married to another man, why are we taking away his rights to do so?


This isn't necessarily directed at you Bruce...

Because remember, according the declaration of independence only white males are allowed to have rights. Non-whites and woman (probably homosexuals too) are not allowed to have them.

Why did we change that? Did we discover something else or did *gasp* society change its views on race and gender?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Lets be realistic, the majority are not allowed to infringe on a minority as long as the majority allows them too. If a gay man wants to get married to another man, why are we taking away his rights to do so?


This isn't necessarily directed at you Bruce...

Because remember, according the declaration of independence only white males are allowed to have rights. Non-whites and woman (probably homosexuals too) are not allowed to have them.

Why did we change that? Did we discover something else or did *gasp* society change its views on race and gender?

You've proven that you have not read the Declaration of Independence. As usual, you blather on and on about things you have no clue about. The Declaration of Independence does not say that "only white males are allowed to have rights". Feel free to back that up.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Lets be realistic, the majority are not allowed to infringe on a minority as long as the majority allows them too. If a gay man wants to get married to another man, why are we taking away his rights to do so?

Marriage is a privilege, not a right.

This isn't necessarily directed at you Bruce...

Because remember, according the declaration of independence only white males are allowed to have rights. Non-whites and woman (probably homosexuals too) are not allowed to have them.

Why did we change that? Did we discover something else or did *gasp* society change its views on race and gender?

That's not true.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Marriage is a privilege, not a right.

I disagree. Marriage is a contract and we all have the right to enter into contracts. It doesn't matter if it's 2 people or 20 and if they are all of the same gender or even if they are related. As long as all parties are the age of majority and enter into the contract willingly there's no problem.

If the government recognizes one form of contract, it should recognize them all.

[piercehawkeye45]

Back up your shit Radar. I have yet to see proof of unalienable rights.

You proved that you would deny gravity while falling off a cliff.

Where did I say this Radar? I think you are throwing words in my mouth again.

Our unalienable rights are self-evident and are as real and tangible as gravity.

Ok, I will get into this. First of all, do you know how gravity works Radar? There is something that causes the acceleration of gravity whether it is a particle or something else, something causes gravity. What causes rights? Who gives us rights?

Then, you can take away gravity but not rights. If I take away whatever is causing gravity I can physically have a world without gravity. You cannot do the same things with rights. You cannot have a physical person without rights, it is impossible to even imagine. That is why rights are abstract concepts. You cannot take away their effects so therefore you can not tell if rights are real or not.

For 99.9999999% of the earth rights are self-evident, tangible, and real and have nothing to do with the society in which we live, public morality, or the number of people who happen to be there. For the retarded, insane, poorly educated, or purposely obtuse others, it must be spoon fed.

Are you sure about this? Can you give me at least a survey that suggests this? Because actually, this is the only board I've been too that thinks we have unalienable rights.


Radar, can you answer these questions.

What is the difference between philosophy and science?

Who or what gives us rights? If you say that nothing gives us rights than name something else in the universe that we have or affect by but is not caused by anything.

How do you know that "killing all the Jews" isn't an unalienable right because some people believe it is?

How do we know that "bearing arms" is an unalienable right and "killing all the Jews" isn't? Who told us? What told them or how did they find out?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Back up your shit Radar. I have yet to see proof of unalienable rights.

Wrong. You've seen it many times, but you just deny it much like a child putting fingers in their ears while saying, "I can't hear you!".

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Where did I say this Radar? I think you are throwing words in my mouth again.

By denying the existence of natural rights, you deny the existence of gravity. Both are equally part of natural law.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Ok, I will get into this. First of all, do you know how gravity works Radar? There is something that causes the acceleration of gravity whether it is a particle or something else, something causes gravity. What causes rights? Who gives us rights?

Natural law encompasses gravity and natural rights. You claim that gravity exists because a particle exists. Natural rights exist because nature exists.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Then, you can take away gravity but not rights. If I take away whatever is causing gravity I can physically have a world without gravity. You cannot do the same things with rights. You cannot have a physical person without rights, it is impossible to even imagine. That is why rights are abstract concepts. You cannot take away their effects so therefore you can not tell if rights are real or not.

No, you can't take away gravity. Society has no bearing on gravity. Every single person on earth could unanimously vote to get rid of gravity, and it would still exist. The same is true of our natural rights. If every single person on earth voted for our rights to go away, we'd still have them. Nothing you say or do will remove either gravity or our natural rights.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Are you sure about this? Can you give me at least a survey that suggests this? Because actually, this is the only board I've been too that thinks we have unalienable rights.

Yes I'm sure about it and I don't need to provide a survey. By all means do your own survey. Ask everyone you meet if they have the right to live. Then ask if that right comes from their government or if they are born with that right.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Radar, can you answer these questions.

What is the difference between philosophy and science?

I'll wait to answer this until you've completed your assigned reading.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Who or what gives us rights? If you say that nothing gives us rights than name something else in the universe that we have or affect by but is not caused by anything.

Nature (aka the laws of physics) grant us these rights at birth.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

How do you know that "killing all the Jews" isn't an unalienable right because some people believe it is?

I know that murdering Jews isn't a right because if one human being has a right to life, we all do. My rights end where another person's begin. I don't have a right to kill another human unless it is in my own defense. My right to swing my fist ends where another person's nose begins.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

How do we know that "bearing arms" is an unalienable right and "killing all the Jews" isn't? Who told us? What told them or how did they find out?

Bearing arms does not infringe on the rights of others. Murder does. Bearing arms is part of our right to life. Murder is not one of our rights because our rights don't include infringing on the rights of others.

Now shut up your yap, and do some reading.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Radar

Wrong. You've seen it many times, but you just deny it much like a child putting fingers in their ears while saying, "I can't hear you!".

I must of missed it then.

I honestly have not seen any proof of natural rights. Since I am obviously not as smarted as you, please explain it for me word for word.

By denying the existence of natural rights, you deny the existence of gravity. Both are equally part of natural law.

You could theoretically take away gravity if you take away what is causing it. You can not take away what is giving us our rights. I can imagine what a world would be like without gravity, we would all die, but I can imagine it. I cannot imagine a world without rights.

If we lived in a universe without gravity space would just seem empty and all energy would probably be spread out. Since I am not as smarted as you, can you explain to me what the universe would be like if we did not have rights.

Natural law encompasses gravity and natural rights. You claim that gravity exists because a particle exists. Natural rights exist because nature exists.

Ok, if you want it that way. If we take away that particle we can take away gravity. We can not take away nature so there is no way we can test your version of rights, which makes it philosophy, which means you cannot prove or disprove it.

No, you can't take away gravity. Society has no bearing on gravity. Every single person on earth could unanimously vote to get rid of gravity, and it would still exist. The same is true of our natural rights. If every single person on earth voted for our rights to go away, we'd still have them. Nothing you say or do will remove either gravity or our natural rights.

Where the fuck did you get this from? I never said society has any effect on gravity, I said that particle or whatever causes gravity does.

What you are saying is completely retarded. That would be like a society saying that we should get rid of morals. Rights and morals come with society, you cannot have a society without rights or morals.

Remember, rights are just justifications. You do something because you have the right the do it. You justify your shooting at people who take away your guns because you have the right to own a gun.

If I am the only human on Earth, what would be the point of rights because I wouldn't need to justify myself. The same goes with morals, morals are basically guidelines on how we interact with other people. If there is no one to interact with, there is no need for morals. So since there are no need for rights or morals until a society is formed, why would nature create rights or morals when the chance of a society actually forming is so small? Since you don't believe in a god, you probably do realize how small the chance is of an organism that feels the need for justification (rights) to evolve.

That is what I am trying to get at. The fact that rights came with society and will leave when society falls. There is no need for nature to create rights when society can.

Yes I'm sure about it and I don't need to provide a survey. By all means do your own survey. Ask everyone you meet if they have the right to live. Then ask if that right comes from their government or if they are born with that right.

You are a joke aren't you? I never said we don't have the right to live. I said that rights are a sociological construct.

I'll wait to answer this until you've completed your assigned reading.

I already have a book list in double digits that I need to get too. I'm not going any of your books ahead of the ones I want to read, I just don't care that much.

Nature (aka the laws of physics) grant us these rights at birth.

Prove it.

I know that murdering Jews isn't a right because if one human being has a right to life, we all do. My rights end where another person's begin. I don't have a right to kill another human unless it is in my own defense. My right to swing my fist ends where another person's nose begins.

Bearing arms does not infringe on the rights of others. Murder does. Bearing arms is part of our right to life. Murder is not one of our rights because our rights don't include infringing on the rights of others.

Is there like a ten commandments saying what our rights are? Where are you getting this information? All I hear is what you are saying rights are, not what nature is saying what rights are.

Originally Posted by jinx

If society determines our rights then there can be no such thing as human rights violations then, right?

No. I am saying society determines rights. So if you go against what society says right are, you have human right violations.

If a particular society decides that they don't want any filthy jews mucking up their gene pool, then jews have no right to life there, correct?

There we have a conflict of interests. If a society determines that jews have no right to life, the jews have no right to life from THEIR perspective. But our, and the Jewish society, says that jews have a right to life, so we will protect them from that society that doesn't think they have the right to life. If the Jews think they have a right to life, they can protect themselves.

I can't think of a good human example, so I will go to animal rights. We as a society says that dogs have a right to life and if you breed them in horrible living conditions and kill them at will you will go to jail. But, we as a society says that pigs do not have a right life and it is accepted that we breed them in horrible living conditions and kill them at will.

Since life and pursuit of happiness is something that no sane society will deny themselves, I will have the stay with property. In many different ways of living, rights to property do not make sense. For example, owning property in a hunter-gatherer society would destroy that whole system. In a far left socio-economic system, right to property is also taken away as well because property goes against that political philosophy. They are not wrong in their beliefs, it is just a difference in culture in dealing with rights.

Owning property is historically a rightist mindset and does not work in a leftist system. So to say that owning property is an unalienable right means that you are saying that a far leftist system is wrong, which is absurd.

Did you go thru public schools here in the US pierce?

Yes I did, why?