Will the Second Amendment survive?

[Radar]

No, I do not agree. Having the ability to violate another's rights is not the same thing as having the right to do so. I have the ability to rape someone. I do not have the right to do it.

Might does not make right and does not make rights. You can deny rights all you like, but you and I both know that you have them. You have the right to life, so this childish exercise in futility proves nothing.

You have the RIGHT to blather on and on claiming we don't have rights.

Pierce said he would defend his RIGHT to life even if someone else thought it were a privilege. This alone proves it to be a right because it's not something we require permission to do and it does not violate the rights of others.

How many of you are intellectually honest enough to have read the links I posted? My guess is none.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Radar

How many of you are intellectually honest enough to have read the links I posted? My guess is none.

You didn't even read the post you are replying to.

No, I do not agree. Having the ability to violate another's rights is not the same thing as having the right to do so. I have the ability to rape someone. I do not have the right to do it.

You do agree that "strawman's ability to shoot the police in defense of his supposed "right" fails to prove he has that right?"

His ability to shoot the cop does not prove that the has the right to.

And your ability to shoot someone you percieve to have violated your rights doesn't prove that you have the right to.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You didn't even read the post you are replying to.
You do agree that "strawman's ability to shoot the police in defense of his supposed "right" fails to prove he has that right?"

His ability to shoot the cop does not prove that the has the right to.

And your ability to shoot someone you perceive to have violated your rights doesn't prove that you have the right to.

Thanks, HM, glad someone got the point

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Radar

Pierce said he would defend his RIGHT to life even if someone else thought it were a privilege. This alone proves it to be a right because it's not something we require permission to do and it does not violate the rights of others.

Since we have an age limit on the ability to drink alcohol, it is not considered a right but a privilege. I will drink even if society thinks it is a privilege. Does this prove that the ability to drink is a right because its not something that I require permission to do and it does not violate the rights of others?

You will say yes but other people will say no. That shows that rights are perspective based. You just have an absolute perspective, anything that I do not need permission to do and it does not violate the rights of others should be legal, so it is in your best interests to support that view. Other people think differently so it is in their best interest to support an opposing viewpoint where rights are more perspective based.