Will the Second Amendment survive?

[piercehawkeye45]

Most of the examples you have given me are just proving that our disagreements have to do with wording. When it comes down to it, privilege and rights are just words that you can use to turn the argument your way. To me, there really isn't a difference between the two besides a label.

I'll try to organize my argument again.

As I mentioned before, most of disagreements are just arguing semantics coming from my bottom up approach and your top down approach.

Lets take the right/privilege to life in the United States. As most of us know, some states allow the practice of capital punishment. With this, would life be considered a right or privilege since the government has the ability to take a life from a person.

Your perspective: We have the right to life and the state is just violating that right in a certain case. The person still has a right to life but the state is violating that right. The person dies against his will.
My perspective: Our society agreed that in certain cases, we allow the state to take away our right of life. From that person's perspective, assuming he still wants to live, he has the right to life so he will defend himself but from the state's perspective he doesn't so they will kill him. The person dies against his will.

The outcome is the same in both of our perspectives, it is just that you go from bottom down and I go from top down and mine allows for perspective. The only thing I don't get from your perspective is what does the state think? Does the state think that he has a right to life and they are knowning violating it or something else?

Another example.

Your Perspective:We all have the right to bear arms but the people have decided that it will let the government violate our right.
My Perspective:We as a society decided that we do not have the right to own guns.

Once again, we have the same conclusion but you go top down and I go bottom up. My question from the last example applies here as well.

So I will try to sum it up:
Your Perspective: We will have rights that can never be taken away from us, but only violated when the people decide that they can be violated.
My Perspective We as people give ourselves rights and decide which ones we should have and to the extreme. I am generalizing here because society doesn't necessarily reflect the individual.


So the question is really do we create our own rights or are we born with them?

So that gets into my previous question, what would we be like without rights? If we have rights, then there must be some way we can imagine someone without rights.
Me: Rights are an abstract concept so we physically wouldn't be any different, just our laws would be different and we would feel the need to justify our actions with "because I can ethically".
You: ???


Now to the right versus privilege.

Your Perspective: A right is something that cannot be taken away from me and a privilege is something that can.
My Perspective: They are just labels created by humans. If society agrees that we can not take something away from me, it becomes a right. If we agree that something can be taken away from me it is a privilege.

Then the question comes up, who decides the difference between a right and privilege?
Your Perspective: ???
My Perspective: People decide.

Honestly, I do not understand how we decide what the difference between rights and privileges are? How do we know that the ability to bear arms isn't an unalienable right but a privilege? How do we know that the ability to marry isn't a privilege but an unalienable right? Who decides what is what?


Hopefully that answers your question.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Most of the examples you have given me are just proving that our disagreements have to do with wording. When it comes down to it, privilege and rights are just words that you can use to turn the argument your way. To me, there really isn't a difference between the two besides a label.

I'll try to organize my argument again.

As I mentioned before, most of disagreements are just arguing semantics coming from my bottom up approach and your top down approach.

Lets take the right/privilege to life in the United States. As most of us know, some states allow the practice of capital punishment. With this, would life be considered a right or privilege since the government has the ability to take a life from a person.

Your perspective: We have the right to life and the state is just violating that right in a certain case. The person still has a right to life but the state is violating that right. The person dies against his will.
My perspective: Our society agreed that in certain cases, we allow the state to take away our right of life. From that person's perspective, assuming he still wants to live, he has the right to life so he will defend himself but from the state's perspective he doesn't so they will kill him. The person dies against his will.

The outcome is the same in both of our perspectives, it is just that you go from bottom down and I go from top down and mine allows for perspective. The only thing I don't get from your perspective is what does the state think? Does the state think that he has a right to life and they are knowning violating it or something else?

Another example.

Your Perspective:We all have the right to bear arms but the people have decided that it will let the government violate our right.
My Perspective:We as a society decided that we do not have the right to own guns.

Once again, we have the same conclusion but you go top down and I go bottom up. My question from the last example applies here as well.

So I will try to sum it up:
Your Perspective: We will have rights that can never be taken away from us, but only violated when the people decide that they can be violated.
My Perspective We as people give ourselves rights and decide which ones we should have and to the extreme. I am generalizing here because society doesn't necessarily reflect the individual.


So the question is really do we create our own rights or are we born with them?

So that gets into my previous question, what would we be like without rights? If we have rights, then there must be some way we can imagine someone without rights.
Me: Rights are an abstract concept so we physically wouldn't be any different, just our laws would be different and we would feel the need to justify our actions with "because I can ethically".
You: ???


Now to the right versus privilege.

Your Perspective: A right is something that cannot be taken away from me and a privilege is something that can.
My Perspective: They are just labels created by humans. If society agrees that we can not take something away from me, it becomes a right. If we agree that something can be taken away from me it is a privilege.

Then the question comes up, who decides the difference between a right and privilege?
Your Perspective: ???
My Perspective: People decide.

Honestly, I do not understand how we decide what the difference between rights and privileges are? How do we know that the ability to bear arms isn't an unalienable right but a privilege? How do we know that the ability to marry isn't a privilege but an unalienable right? Who decides what is what?


Hopefully that answers your question.

My perspective is never that people allow the government to violate our rights. I say the people are coerced and threatened into allowing the government to violate our rights because they fear if they stand up for their rights, they will be the nail that sticks out the most and they'll get hammered.

People aren't ALLOWING the government to violate their rights, they are merely scared they'll be outgunned. Most people pay income taxes not because they feel a sense of duty or because they think they are the right thing to do. They pay taxes out of force and coercion. If they knew men with guns would not show up when they refused to have their income stolen from them, they would cease to pay them and exercise their right to keep what they earn.

If someone is raped, it doesn't mean they ALLOWED themselves to be used for sex.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Radar

My perspective is never that people allow the government to violate our rights. I say the people are coerced and threatened into allowing the government to violate our rights because they fear if they stand up for their rights, they will be the nail that sticks out the most and they'll get hammered.

So if a group democratically votes that they do not have the right to own an assault rifle or they vote a representive in who believes the people he or she is representing do not have the right to own an assault rifle that the people are scared of getting thrown in jail? That doesn't make sense. Just because you believe that we should never allow the government to violate/take away our rights doesn't mean that everyone does.

People aren't ALLOWING the government to violate their rights, they are merely scared they'll be outgunned. Most people pay income taxes not because they feel a sense of duty or because they think they are the right thing to do. They pay taxes out of force and coercion. If they knew men with guns would not show up when they refused to have their income stolen from them, they would cease to pay them and exercise their right to keep what they earn.

Then why are non-politicians trying to get guns outlawed? And I know people that know the income tax is technically illegal but wouldn't mind it if it went to places besides the military.

If someone is raped, it doesn't mean they ALLOWED themselves to be used for sex.

Not everyone thinks that gun laws are comparable to rape.

No, consensus doesn't prove it. Our rights are self-evident. The consensus just proves that people recognize that our rights are self-evident.

No it doesn't, it just proves that everyone agrees that we have that single right. I can just as easily say I don't have the right to life and your conclusion is proven false right there. You are using invalid logic.

It is like saying that just because every human thinks it is unethical to practice cannibalism makes that a universal ethic. But, in the past (actually present too but I am leaving that out for the sake of the example) groups thought it was not only ethical but sacred to practice cannibalism so it obviously isn't a universal ethic.

Also, since Pierce openly admits he doesn't know the difference between a right and a privilege I'll ask him to read the links I've provided again.

Finals week is coming up (I come on here to get my mind of studying right now) and I am not going to read through a bunch of links right now for something that you can answer in two seconds. Good way at avoiding my questions though so I will ask them again.



Questions for Radar:
1) What would humans be like without rights?
2) Who determines the difference between a right and a privilege?
3) When did the first human group discover/create rights?
4) Did rights exist before humans evolved the ability to justify their actions?