Perhaps a bit, but I base my philosophy on one assumption. A free person has the right to do whatever they want, so long as they don't harm others. And we are all free persons. Once you accept that assumption, you'll agree with me. And if you DON'T accept that assumption, you have some seriously messed up ideas about your authority over other free humans.
One does not need to believe in the concept of natural rights in order to support fair and firm limitations on government power. This is just yet another logical fallacy. Insult me, call me a communist, say I support tyranny or whatever... All you are doing is avoiding making an actual rebuttal to any of the very reasonable points I've made. It is perfectly obvious. If any of you care to address the origins of rights, how they can be called inalienable and then limited or denied justifiably, etc. I'd be interested in what you have to say. But I have a feeling any and all responses will be about me, and not those points. I consider it a concession of defeat.
I think that it is a fairly reasonable philosophical belief. Of course what is to be considered harmful is determined by government, ideally through democratic representation. So we're back at that point, which is that people decide what is acceptable and what isn't, not God or nature.
Yes, yes, I know, man has never shown any tendency toward tyranny and having a higher understanding is so old fashion. What you are doing is making the same mistake that leads to tyranny so yes, you support it. At least the Framers were smarter than that.
What is harmful is generally inherently obvious. I can swing my arms around as much as I like, so long as I'm not hitting you in the face.
You already know where we stand. And we have lost nothing. You are the lost soul, but that's ok, because God loves you just the same.
That there is succinct and to the point and entirely true. The last part to the equation for this conversation is discontinue the conversation with a Daniel like poster who continually repeats the same mantra in-spite of the accurate rebuttals. nuff said eh?
If what was harmful was obvious, we wouldn't need the courts, and we wouldn't need to embody certain privileges in the law. If it were obvious, we wouldn't be having this discussion, or really any other. - - - Updated - - - I haven't seen a rebuttal. I point out that rights don't make sense because they are all alienable (and should be alienable), and thus not rights, and then you guys call me a communist, a supporter of tyranny, etc. That isn't a rebuttal. It is you not reconciling the obvious discrepancies.
While you're practicing your Free Speech, we practice our 2nd A. If you don't want a gun, then don't own one. It is that simple. But just because you have an intense and unreasonable fear of anything that goes bang, I suggest you cringe in your house and await the end and leave th Bill of Rights be. They are just fine the way they are. We've told you that we support the 2nd A and you've derided us at every point. Thus, after your brow beating, if we fail to answer you seriously, expect it to come. After that, you will be simply trolling and flamebating, demanding that we give you the non-answers you want. You don't like Rights? Move to some place that enslaves its citizens. Such is the wet dream of all socialists.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I am afraid of guns or things that go bang. I support extensive gun privileges, I enjoy hunting and skeet shooting, and I wouldn't vote for the gun laws that I view as overbearing or unnecessary (a good example being restrictions on long guns). Once again, you are engaging in logical fallacies because you can't come to terms with nuance. That I recognize the philosophical weakness of natural rights does not mean I am opposed to all legal benefits derived from them. They are a convenient fiction, nothing more, and only exist because we have embodied them into law. I support the idea of legally protecting some privileges and not others. The privileges I support must be balanced with the other privileges I support. In this case, I believe that gun ownership is not sufficiently important to warrant removing peoples ability to set the laws of their own community, a far more important part of liberty than guns will ever be. The privilege of speech, due process, a fair trial, peaceful assembly, equality under the law, etc. - these are the bedrock of a functioning democracy and criminal justice system, and so I do not generally support infringing upon them, although there are obvious instances in which a person ought to be alienated from them. As there is with all "rights," which makes them privileges, by definition (this being the main argument you've ignored in favor of personal attacks).
So you claim there is no difference between Rights and privilege..see, that's where your futile efforts meet a concrete wall. No you are the one confusing Rights an privilege, that self defense is not a Right..........................rather than trying to convince us that privilege is better than Rights, you would do well to consider a move to another country that celebrates the lack of Rights...say China, N Korea. And since you insist that your country of origin remain a top secret, you have no pony in this race...destroy your own country and stay out of our Bill of Rights
My country of origin has no relevancy to this conversation. Although it is interesting that you seem to agree in principle with the idea that people who live in a particular place should be free to set the laws of that particular place, without undue interference from outsiders. Which is exactly my position. If you want extensive gun privileges, as I do, you should be able to get them by organizing politically. If a community doesn't want those privileges, and instead wants strict gun control, why should they be prevented from doing that? The argument presented is that they should be prevented from doing it by the Second Amendment, on the basis that gun ownership is an inalienable right. Unfortunately, that position doesn't make sense, because there are lots of guns you cannot and should not be able to own - an M249 SAW, for instance, is illegal in every state in the US. Convicted criminals also have their right alienated from them as a result of due process - which again proves that all rights are privileges, which can and should be alienated under certain circumstances. The other privileges we deem rights are more important to liberty than owning a gun can ever be, and so I am generally unwilling to infringe upon them, although you'd be hard-pressed to make a case that we should never infringe upon them as circumstances warrant. I may supposedly have the right to say whatever I want... But I can and should be persecuted if I am committing libel or slander, I am making threats (however serious or not), or I am yelling fire in a theater. All rights are similarly limited, and thus not rights by the same logic that supposedly justifies them philosophically.
Why does anyone need a right to bear arms? If you want to carry a gun just do it. If someone tries to stop you, shoot them.
why does anyone need a right to free speech, if you want to yell bomb in the middle of a super bowl....just do it. If someone tries to stop you yell. RAAAAAAAAAPE!!!!!
Which, of course, would violate two rights, the right of the property owner and the possible right to life of others if it causes a stampede for the exits. Laws were made which do not violate the first amendment right but protects the rights of others. Actually, law doesn't even do that, it only sets a punishment for someone for violates others rights.
Through oppression and the reason our Constitution protects our rights "from" government. I am amazed you don't understand this but then your education system up North must be lacking.
I don't know if you're trolling or not, because the fact that you can't grasp that rights are limited and ought to be means they are not rights. They are privileges. There are laws against you slandering people - this is a limitation on free speech, is it not? There are laws against owning a M249 SAW, is this a limitation on the Second Amendment or not? Should these laws be viewed as illegitimate because they infringe upon rights? How about preventing a violent criminal from owning a gun after he is released from jail - you have removed his right to gun ownership through due process. For the tenth time, the concept of natural rights makes no sense. The only conception of rights that makes sense is legal rights - those that are explicitly protected by law. But even these can and are removed, for all sorts of reasons. All it takes is due process, a trial by ones peers, etc. Further, each and every right listed by the Constitution can be legally abolished. All it takes is enough people wanting to do it. The entire point is that rights are not "natural." They are the result of people agreeing that you have them, and nothing more. The conception of rights as proposed by the Founding Fathers is total philosophical BS. As is clearly and irrefutably obvious...
Not to be argumentative, but with a class III License you could own an M249 in the US, They went into production in 1970 and anything pre 1986 can still be purchased. As for natural rights? I believe at the most basic level it is instinct. Sure your free to have sex with that hot woman next door. However, if she doesn't feel the same it would "feel" wrong, never mind the screeming. Government is useful for defining, and weighing these different rights.
agreed. But even then we need to keep an eye on government. Any law that violates our BoR can be ignored. Look at Connecticut.......
