Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 456 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 175 of 241

Thread: Question on the 2nd amendment

  1. #141
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,348

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    Again, We're talking about two different things. I'm good with, and support the nature of this nation. I simply know it's a wire fence meant to keep the livestock in check and the wolves out. It's imperfect, and always exists on the border of the wilds and never works 100% of the time and is always subject to the greater nature of the wild. You can keep lecturing me, but you presuming that I accept you as some sort of authority is, well, presumptuous, and wrong.

    Clearly we're each having separate conversations and talking past each other. The fact that I recognize that, and you don't, hints to who has no idea of what's going on. Let's just go with the idea that the conversation has meet it's natural end between us.
    We're having one conversation, talking about one thing, a very important thing, a fundamental thing, and I will keep shooting down your errors as long as you put them up, lest they infect the healthy tissue. I've had it with this facile cynicism masquerading as "realism". Such progress as has been made was bought with blood and by God you will recognize or I'll know the reason why. A nation of 300 million that spans from the Atlantic to the Pacific and you have a mistaken idea what it's all about.

    In view of the nature of the subject, the very last thing I want is for you to take me as an authority. On the contrary, go to the library, or wherever it is that you go, find what you can that you think refutes my arguments, and slam it on me, hard as you can. I say you got nothing. I call your bluff.

    You're betraying your own signature line, for F's sake.
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,887

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    As may be, but he's right about the right to rebel. The duty to rebel. The god damn nation is built on it, god damn it.

    There are legitimate and illegitimate rebellions just as there are legitimate and illegitimate governments. Does it make a difference? It's what it's all about , god damn it.
    Another one who wishes Syria on the US of A?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    778

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Through the ballot box.

    Do you really wish Syria on your fellow citizens?
    This is what happens when foreign powers fight each other by proxy. Of this there are many examples. Examples of insurrections which are not interfered with are somewhat more rare.

  4. #144
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    51,935

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    When the government sends its army against its own civilians it is long past time for that government to have been removed. But that is hard to do when the government makes sure that they are the only ones armed.
    So when does one start shooting gov’t officials? You know, to prevent tyranny.

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,887

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Decourcy View Post
    This is what happens when foreign powers fight each other by proxy. Of this there are many examples. Examples of insurrections which are not interfered with are somewhat more rare.
    Good point. It would be over sooner, with the rebels labelled terrorists, and any survivors in gaol. There would be destruction of property, but entire towns would not be reduced to rubble.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    778

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Good point. It would be over sooner, with the rebels labelled terrorists, and any survivors in gaol. There would be destruction of property, but entire towns would not be reduced to rubble.
    Sometimes yes. Sometimes the government is removed and those officials are the ones behind bars.

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,887

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Decourcy View Post
    Sometimes yes. Sometimes the government is removed and those officials are the ones behind bars.
    What are the odds?

    Would you even wish a fraction of Syria on your next door neighbour?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    778

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    What are the odds?

    Would you even wish a fraction of Syria on your next door neighbour?
    I would never wish Syria on anyone. I would also never think that I would have the right to decide that the Syrians made the wrong choice by making the attempt. If Russia had been kept out, perhaps the result would have been different.
    Perhaps next time they will succeed. Because next time will happen, as it must when people live under a despot. The people will revolt, or the government will finally change of its own accord, as happened in Spain.
    Votes won't change anything if you can't vote.
    The US is no-where near that level of disfuction. Yet.

  9. #149
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    51,935

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    More on the 2nd Amendment community..I’m sure he was just kidding.


    https://www.cleveland.com/court-just...ities-say.html

    Ohio man posted about mass shootings, attacking Planned Parenthood and federal agents, authorities say
    Updated Aug 12, 7:03 PM; Posted Aug 12, 5:18 PM

    By Eric Heisig, cleveland.com

    CLEVELAND, Ohio — Federal prosecutors on Monday charged a Boardman man with making threats against law enforcement, following an investigation that revealed he voiced his support online of mass shootings and lived in a house with 25 guns and 10,000 rounds of ammunition, records show.

    Justin Olsen, 18, faces a charge of threatening to assault a federal law enforcement officer. Authorities arrested him on Aug. 7 on state charges and he was taken to the Mahoning County Jail. He has been in custody ever since.
    .
    .
    Olsen also posted statements such as “don’t comply with gun laws, stock up on stuff they could ban. In fact, go out of your way to break these laws, they’re f-----g stupid,” the affidavit says. He also wrote “Hell, even the Oklahoma City bombing shows that armed resistance is a viable method of political change. There is no legal solution,” according to the affidavit.

    The latter was a reference to Timothy McVeigh, who is responsible for the largest domestic terrorism attack in U.S. history. McVeigh, who was executed in 2011, become something of a cult figure among mass shooters and in dark corners of the internet.


    .
    In all, the search of the house resulted in the seizure of 15 rifles, some of which were assault-style, as well as 10 semi-automatic pistols and an estimated 10,000 rounds of ammunition, according to the affidavit. Authorities also found a machete in the trunk of Olsen’s car.

  10. #150
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Grosse Pointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    14,418

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Still wondering when the "conservative" position on gun control reversed From Ronald Reagan's to Huey Newton's.

  11. #151
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,348

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    Really . . . are you smoking crack or something? I don't know how much clearer I can be. I love the concept of basic human rights . . .
    No you don't. You don't believe they exist, and that people that do believe it are delusional.

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    Lol, so delusional.

    These words and the outlined process for a constitutional convention, enabling The Constitution to be changed, should be enough to embarrass you for saying such a thing. Run along and play, let the adults talk.
    The Declaration of Independence states that inalienable rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The rights written with-in the Constitution are changeable, flat out, read Article 5 and weep.

    Lol, the dude with the biggest stick defines your rights. How naive of you to think otherwise. For instance, the patriot act still allows the government to define you as a terrorist and then poof!!! No more rights for you big guy, and I dare you to test that.

    I'm flabbergasted Brian doesn't get it.
    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    . . . and I think we should strive for them . . .
    Striving has nothing to do with it. They are inherent in existence. You have them if you're in a coma.

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    I simply know, for a fact, that laws and right's . . .
    There's a difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    . . . apply differently from guys like me to wealthy guys, hell, from men to women, from country to country.
    Human rights do not vary.

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    These are facts no matter how ornery you get.
    They are errors.

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    God hasn't given us sh17, god is a story . . .
    Who said anything about God?

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    . . . an imaginary authority you require because you're too weak to act kindly and with compassion on your own. I'm a grown up, I'm a good person all on my own. You did have one part right, what rights we enjoy have been hard fought and won and only exist upon the willingness to keep fighting and winning. LOL, but your generation bent over and gave many of them away, boomers allowed the elite to erode our rights, and if we want them back we have to fight all over again. Thanks boomers . . . *slow clap*
    Pitiful. Put it right back where it came from. That's as bigoted and delusional as Donald Trump.

    OK, so your rights are gone, and you have to fight to get them back. What do we know from careful study of how this extraordinary thing happened, with so little notice? What's the first move? You have no idea, you're just making S up.

    Somewhere along the line you concluded that you know all you need to about this topic. But you're simply wrong on several fundamental points.
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

  12. #152
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    20,743

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Name one of these "rights".

    Then fetch me a pound of it.
    Creationists aren't mad - they're possessed of demons.

  13. #153
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    778

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by P.I. Stazzer-Newt View Post
    Name one of these "rights".

    Then fetch me a pound of it.
    My dog would like a pound too.
    If anyone believes in those rights being inherent and not a social construct , but only applied them to humans, they are either religious or hypocrites.
    The only rights we have are the ones we create and fight for.

  14. #154
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    19,256

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by P.I. Stazzer-Newt View Post
    Name one of these "rights".

    Then fetch me a pound of it.
    Do you mean weight, or monetary value?

    Peace,
    Robert

  15. #155
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    20,743

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Your choice.

    I'd like weight.
    Creationists aren't mad - they're possessed of demons.

  16. #156
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    19,256

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by P.I. Stazzer-Newt View Post
    Your choice.

    I'd like weight.


    Peace,
    Robert

  17. #157
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,887

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    I see Osborne is on a roll again, flogging his hobby horse.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  18. #158
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    20,743

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Call the RSPCA.
    Creationists aren't mad - they're possessed of demons.

  19. #159
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,887

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    The constitution doesn't give citizens rights. Those rights are inherent to all mankind.
    So, if Sean, and I think Osborne, believe that "rights" are "inherent", and so not devised by humans, there are some questions to be considered.

    If they are inherent, but not devised by human kind, have they always existed?

    Did they exist before humans evolved?
    Did they exist before speech evolved, before there was a method of communicating them?

    If they did exist before humans evolved, where did they come from? Were they created alongside but independent of humanity? If so how?

    If they only came into being when humans evolved, why only then, why only us? What makes us different from all of the life that existed before we fell out of our trees?

    Discuss.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  20. #160
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    19,256

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    So, if Sean, and I think Osborne, believe that "rights" are "inherent", and so not devised by humans, there are some questions to be considered.

    If they are inherent, but not devised by human kind, have they always existed?

    Did they exist before humans evolved?
    Did they exist before speech evolved, before there was a method of communicating them?

    If they did exist before humans evolved, where did they come from? Were they created alongside but independent of humanity? If so how?

    If they only came into being when humans evolved, why only then, why only us? What makes us different from all of the life that existed before we fell out of our trees?

    Discuss.
    You know what I like most about you? We can go around the corner over shades of blue, or some other insignificant factoid about somesuch nonsense, but when it gets down to tacks...

    Well.

    I see you, Nick. And, I couldnít have asked these questions better.

    Peace,
    Robert

  21. #161
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,887

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by amish rob View Post
    You know what I like most about you? We can go around the corner over shades of blue, or some other insignificant factoid about somesuch nonsense, but when it gets down to tacks...

    Well.

    I see you, Nick. And, I couldn’t have asked these questions better.

    Peace,
    Robert
    Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  22. #162
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    19,256

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
    Not a twenty four hour clock.

    Peace,
    Back To Normal, Now

  23. #163
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia
    Posts
    9,269

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    So, if Sean, and I think Osborne, believe that "rights" are "inherent", and so not devised by humans, there are some questions to be considered.

    If they are inherent, but not devised by human kind, have they always existed?

    Did they exist before humans evolved?
    Did they exist before speech evolved, before there was a method of communicating them?

    If they did exist before humans evolved, where did they come from? Were they created alongside but independent of humanity? If so how?

    If they only came into being when humans evolved, why only then, why only us? What makes us different from all of the life that existed before we fell out of our trees?

    Discuss.

    Nick,

    Don't make me pull the "Bump" trigger on you!

    http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...ific+knowledge

    I'll do it! You know I'm crazy!
    Skip

    ---This post is delivered with righteous passion and with a solemn southern directness --
    ...........fighting against the deliberate polarization of politics...

  24. #164
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,348

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    You people are trying to sever the concept of human rights from the concept of the enlightenment, by falsely stating it to be based on the supernatural -- you couldn't be more wrong, but you do love your straw man -- so you can avoid the concept of your moral responsibility for the concept of your government, including your proposed choice of priorities, and what that choice is based on. Your responsibility to society. The social contract.

    All human concepts are human concepts. Ways of organizing observations into useful forms. At that level, Hitler is the equal of Newton. But that's not the only level for comparison. So stop with the "only a concept" schtick. Every thought is "only a concept".

    Things observed in nature exist apart from being observed, and regardless of how the observations are organized. The concept of an observation is only a concept, the concept of an organization is only a concept, the concept of organizing concepts is only a concept . . . how tedious.

    Concepts are put to use, even if only as a basis for conjecture. The use has an effect on others, however slight, and therefore has a moral aspect. It's a choice. Therefore, the refusal to take account of observations which undermine the concept is wrong both ways, scientifically and morally. Science and morality are linked because they are human concepts. All human conceptualizing has a moral aspect.

    Observation of humans has led to the formation of certain concepts about humans, including natural rights, biology, medicine, psychology, the entire human phenomenon. The concept of natural rights is of no greater quality than any other human concepts, but is of equal quality to the best of them.

    If you think you have concepts to the contrary, and observations to back them, by all means set them forth.

    The idea that might is right simply avoids the issue. The idea that whatever the majority decides is right is only a useless elaboration of might makes right.

    The enlightenment marches on, pronouncing all pretended authority to the contrary to have been in fundamental error. This proposition is unremarkable when it comes to science. Salamanders do not reproduce by spontaneous generation. This was so, or not, from the beginning of salamanders, regardless of how many people believed it, or not. This is our concept of nature, which is the basis of the doctrine of natural rights. Not all concepts are equal, except by merely being named as such. If you think you have concepts to the contrary, which ought to be used, i.e. ought to have valuable things risked in reliance upon them -- life, liberty and property -- and think you have observations to back them, by all means set them forth.

    Politics is the means by which our moral sense is translated into law . . . A slow-motion revolution in how this is done, in progress since the 17th century, has made a clean break with the past. People are still fighting and dying in that revolution.

    John MacBeath Watkins, The Outlaw John Locke & Why Liberalism Is Worth Fighting For (2018)
    Which side are you on? There aren't as many sides as there are points of light in the great rainbow of human individuality; there are only two.
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

  25. #165
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,887

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    ^ So, some progress, Osborne does agree that "rights" are a human construct, but defined and agreed in the same way that science progresses in defining reality. Gaining authority as time passes.
    Have to wonder why"natural" as against any other qualifier, or none?

    We await further opinions.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  26. #166
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    20,743

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    The coma patient mentioned earlier makes an interesting study.

    About the only constitutional right which might be considered is the "right to life". If the patient mentioned s left to his own devices then he will almost certainly did. Therefore this right cannot be inherent in the patient.

    Now I know little of the American health system but here in the UK we generally put up quite a fight before the patient died, considerable time money and effort will be expended.

    So the right is not the inherent in the patient but instead consists of a set of duties and obligations accepted by other members of his society.

    The rights are intangible or imaginary, the duties real and observable.
    Creationists aren't mad - they're possessed of demons.

  27. #167
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat - Australia
    Posts
    3,855

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    As i see it, every 'right' has an obligation. If you have a right to something then someone has an obligation to ensure you are given that right.
    They are not inherent in simply being alive - we agree on what is a right or not.

    The right to life is not that someone must give you life, but that the state has an obligation to ensure you are allowed to continue to live - in so far as it can.
    It's all fun and games until Darth Vader comes.

  28. #168
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    2,398

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    Things observed in nature exist apart from being observed, and regardless of how the observations are organized.
    You might want to reconsider that thought and read up on quantum physics, which underlies everything.

    Andy
    "We were schooner-rigged and rakish, with a long and lissome hull ..."

  29. #169
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,887

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by P.I. Stazzer-Newt View Post
    The coma patient mentioned earlier makes an interesting study.

    About the only constitutional right which might be considered is the "right to life". If the patient mentioned s left to his own devices then he will almost certainly did. Therefore this right cannot be inherent in the patient.

    Now I know little of the American health system but here in the UK we generally put up quite a fight before the patient died, considerable time money and effort will be expended.

    So the right is not the inherent in the patient but instead consists of a set of duties and obligations accepted by other members of his society.

    The rights are intangible or imaginary, the duties real and observable.
    However, the patient has the ability to request not to be resuscitated. So there is a right to die, even when there is no inherent right to life.

    Thinking more about the comparison between rights, perhaps ethics is a better concept, and science. Science is the endeavor to discover and agree on facts, what is. Ethics is a study of what should be, not what is.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  30. #170
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,348

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by P.I. Stazzer-Newt View Post
    The coma patient mentioned earlier makes an interesting study.

    About the only constitutional right which might be considered is the "right to life". If the patient mentioned s left to his own devices then he will almost certainly did. Therefore this right cannot be inherent in the patient.

    Now I know little of the American health system but here in the UK we generally put up quite a fight before the patient died, considerable time money and effort will be expended.

    So the right is not the inherent in the patient but instead consists of a set of duties and obligations accepted by other members of his society.

    The rights are intangible or imaginary, the duties real and observable.
    The duties are the practical application, for sure. Sometimes what exactly the duties are is a difficult question, and so resort is had to the reasons for them. With natural rights, it boils down to what the government may not do its citizens, and in some cases must affirmatively act to protect. The essence of the situation is the basis of the rights: they are inherent in existence, as against any purported right to infringe them. The controversy, and the consequent interpretation, new interpretation, re-interpretation, mistaken interpretation, goes on and on, daily. It's an effort to interpret and articulate the rights, which are there all the while.

    The guy lying in a coma owns a house. The government takes the house without paying for it, and the guy's guardian sues to evict them. Whose right to property is being defended?

    The guy is an author whose book isn't finished editing before he goes into a coma. The government prohibits publication, and the guy's literary agent sues the government to overturn the ban. Whose right to free speech is being defended?
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

  31. #171
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,348

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by gypsie View Post
    As i see it, every 'right' has an obligation. If you have a right to something then someone has an obligation to ensure you are given that right.
    They are not inherent in simply being alive - we agree on what is a right or not.
    Person A's right constrains the behavior of Person B. Person B isn't giving Person A anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by gypsie View Post
    The right to life is not that someone must give you life, but that the state has an obligation to ensure you are allowed to continue to live - in so far as it can.
    True. Because you were alive, by right, before the circumstances arose. Where did the right to go on living come from? From being alive in the first place. Who or what gave you that? For want of a better word, nature.
    Last edited by Osborne Russell; 08-16-2019 at 10:31 AM.
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

  32. #172
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    5,047

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by gypsie View Post
    As i see it, every 'right' has an obligation. If you have a right to something then someone has an obligation to ensure you are given that right.
    They are not inherent in simply being alive - we agree on what is a right or not.

    The right to life is not that someone must give you life, but that the state has an obligation to ensure you are allowed to continue to live - in so far as it can.
    This is not what is meant by rights. There is no duty implied on anyone for anotherís rights, other than the right to counsel in a judicial proceeding, and even that is simply a protection provided by the entity that has established its position to deprive you of the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, that you already have.

    To say you have the right to life means nobody has the right to unduly take your life. That if someone attempts to, you have the right to defend yourself, without being judged wrong for doing it. What happens to the person in a coma, or other situation of strife, is not the dictate of a right, but of a compact made between humans. Then it is limited at some point where the burden is too great. On the battlefield, the rescue of a wounded ally is not dictated if it will surely cost the life of the rescuers. On the ocean, if one comes upon victims of distress the compact dictates the attempt at rescue, but if one vessel makes a conscious decision to sail into a storm, another is not dictated to accompany it for safety.

    No, in fact, natural rights can be said to exist only where they impose no burden on others. Rights by law are a variance, the result of an agreement, not natural at all. The Second Amendment along with the excerpt from the Declaration of Independence secure, not give, the natural right of self defense for the people. To say the government, by writing this down, gave you the right is like saying the sun came up because the newspaper printed the time of the sunrise. Government doesnít give rights, it takes them. For every benefit or beneficiary of government action, a bit of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, is extracted from another.
    Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. John Fn Kennedy. (D)

  33. #173
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,348

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyG View Post
    You might want to reconsider that thought and read up on quantum physics, which underlies everything.

    Andy
    Reconsider, why? What's the import for the subject at hand?

    Is Newton good enough to stop you from taking the box the TV came in, making a pair of wings, and jumping off the roof?
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

  34. #174
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,887

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    This is not what is meant by rights. There is no duty implied on anyone for another’s rights, other than the right to counsel in a judicial proceeding, and even that is simply a protection provided by the entity that has established its position to deprive you of the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, that you already have.

    To say you have the right to life means nobody has the right to unduly take your life. That if someone attempts to, you have the right to defend yourself, without being judged wrong for doing it. What happens to the person in a coma, or other situation of strife, is not the dictate of a right, but of a compact made between humans. Then it is limited at some point where the burden is too great. On the battlefield, the rescue of a wounded ally is not dictated if it will surely cost the life of the rescuers. On the ocean, if one comes upon victims of distress the compact dictates the attempt at rescue, but if one vessel makes a conscious decision to sail into a storm, another is not dictated to accompany it for safety.

    No, in fact, natural rights can be said to exist only where they impose no burden on others. Rights by law are a variance, the result of an agreement, not natural at all.
    You were doing reasonably well untill:
    The Second Amendment along with the excerpt from the Declaration of Independence secure, not give, the natural right of self defense for the people. To say the government, by writing this down, gave you the right is like saying the sun came up because the newspaper printed the time of the sunrise. Government doesn’t give rights, it takes them. For every benefit or beneficiary of government action, a bit of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, is extracted from another.
    I challenge you to quote the actual text that discusses "self defence" in ietherdocument.

    Your government might not define nor give rights, but mine does.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  35. #175
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,348

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    This is not what is meant by rights. There is no duty implied on anyone for anotherís rights, other than the right to counsel in a judicial proceeding, and even that is simply a protection provided by the entity that has established its position to deprive you of the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, that you already have.
    I don't get it. The provision of counsel is the fulfilling of the duty, not the creation of the right. You state later that any right implies a duty in someone else, and I agree. But you begin by seeming to deny it.

    All rights imply duties. Who owes what to whom depends what rights you're talking about, in what context. If you and I have a contract, where you buy my car, you have a right to the car and I have a right to the money. We each owe a duty to the other, the duty to fork it over. This is the exercise of the rights of liberty and property (freedom of contract), which the state is obliged to protect, which it does by providing courts which have the power to settle disputes, i.e. the rule of law. It's a private affair until one of us claims the other has breached the contract. And since that was the context in which the contract was worked out and agreed to, it may be questioned whether it was ever entirely private.

    In a situation based on a statute, rather than a contract -- if a statute provides for some kind of forum to be built for people to speak, I have a right to use it, same as anybody else; that's not a right to the forum, it's a right to equal protection. But it is a right, and the government has a duty to protect it; which is an instance of someone else, i.e. the nation as a whole, having a duty regarding my rights. OTOH if it's torn down, I don't have a right to demand that it be re-built.

    If the government is violating my human rights, say, free speech, a have a right which I assert against the government; I can't assert it against private individuals, because they're not the ones infringing it. They have a duty to protect it, but the mechanism of protection is the state to which they have delegated the duty. Again, an instance of someone else, i.e. the nation as a whole, having a duty regarding my rights.

    The right to counsel is implied in the right -- which other people, through the state, have a duty not to infringe -- to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

    All summed up in: "It is to preserve these rights that governments are instituted among men, drawing their just powers from the consent of the governed."

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    To say you have the right to life means nobody has the right to unduly take your life. That if someone attempts to, you have the right to defend yourself, without being judged wrong for doing it. What happens to the person in a coma, or other situation of strife, is not the dictate of a right, but of a compact made between humans. Then it is limited at some point where the burden is too great. On the battlefield, the rescue of a wounded ally is not dictated if it will surely cost the life of the rescuers. On the ocean, if one comes upon victims of distress the compact dictates the attempt at rescue, but if one vessel makes a conscious decision to sail into a storm, another is not dictated to accompany it for safety.
    Looks to me like a list of unlike things.

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    No, in fact, natural rights can be said to exist only where they impose no burden on others. Rights by law are a variance, the result of an agreement, not natural at all. The Second Amendment along with the excerpt from the Declaration of Independence secure, not give, the natural right of self defense for the people.
    The right of self-defense is implicit in the right to life; it imposes a burden on the guy, or the government, that wants to kill you. The issue is the degree to which the government may limit the means of self-defense without infringing the right. Analogous to the fire-in-a-crowded-theater limitation on the right of free speech.

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    To say the government, by writing this down, gave you the right is like saying the sun came up because the newspaper printed the time of the sunrise.
    Well put.

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    Government doesnít give rights, it takes them. For every benefit or beneficiary of government action, a bit of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, is extracted from another.
    That's an oversimplification, to the extent it implies a taking without consent. When you agree to buy the car, and I agree to sell it, it is a matter of mutual consent. We have given rights to each other, that is, exchanged them. We have given up, mutually, the right to have some other relationship, some other rights, with the car and the money. Our previous rights have contracted (hence the name) but it was voluntary; in exchange, we acquired others. You got the right to the car, I got the right to the money. Nothing was taken. Same with government. We don't give up our human rights, but we do agree that, in case of dispute, we will be bound by the process which settles disputes, including disputes as to the extent to which our rights dictate the resolution.

    So I have to fork over the car, or you have to fork over the money, whatever the case was. We got into this mess voluntarily. We consented in advance to have the government settle disputes. One of us says, forget the contract rights, my human rights are being violated. The court says, um, no. Fork it over, or we'll force you to.

    No one has been forced to give up anything they didn't have a duty to give up.
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •