Rights/Privilege..DWS ? Anyone ?
A bit of masochism has struck me.
I want a disertation on "If Rights don't come from God..Where EXACTLY do they spring from ?"
Given that there is no God..then are Rights merely man-made..and subject to revision at the whim of the strongest man around ?
I wish no argument of God/no God..just an attempt to grasp understanding of the issue.
I want a disertation on "If Rights don't come from God..Where EXACTLY do they spring from ?"
Given that there is no God..then are Rights merely man-made..and subject to revision at the whim of the strongest man around ?
I wish no argument of God/no God..just an attempt to grasp understanding of the issue.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
quote:Originally posted by ECC
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
quote:Originally posted by Highball
What then did the Founders of this country believe in ? They didn't expect the Creator to stop the British at the bridge..they took up Arms and did the stopping themslves.
I don't, as stated, wish to turn this into another God/no God argument.
There HAS to be a basis for the Rights of the little people to be secure from the depravities of the rich and/or powerful.
What is the human failing that dumbly bows when asked to drop ones pants for the cheek inspection at the local airport. One would think that the airlines would be broke the next day..by independent folks registering their displeasure by refusing to fly.
You don't believe in the Constitution at all, so quit pretending.
Your only fixation is with your obsessions, and how you can force them on others.
Highball hasn't tried to force anything on anybody. All he's done is spoken his piece...trying to educate some folks...there's no forcing in that. As for his patriotism...he's probably one of the most patriotic folks on this board...a true Constitutionalist.
Total, complete bull.
"Highball
Advanced Member
8348 Posts Posted - 08/20/2007 : 10:07:09 PM
________________________________________
I believe that the Belercous's of the world cannot be reasoned with.
They are a product of sick minds..law professors and Elitists that have sold their souls to the devil.
The dirty little fact that is like a 10 ton elephant in the room is...What the Founders meant by the Second Amendment is actually not relevant anymore.
Not a bit.
We the descendents of the Founders are going to decide one of these fine days exactly what "Freedom" means concerning the Second Amendment..and if the Belercouses and TrFoxes and NRAs' of the world win, Tyranny will exact a terrible toll on them.and us.
Given that we who believe in Freedom win.any of them ever lying his way into office and then revealing their anti-gun bias will be imprisoned as traitors to this country."
Let me know when you find the Constitutional basis for that ECC.
Meanwhile get over your hero worship of someone who would even begin to purport that kind of garbage.
"True Constitutionalist"?
True Brown Shirt dictator, whose only agenda is to force his worldview on everyone else who takes a breath.
He wouldn't know the Constitution if it was used to wipe his butt.
________________________________________
"Tax evasion is illegal; tax avoidance is an art form"
Your highlighted and underlined part of his statement sounds EXACTLY like a true Constitutionalist to me...someone who's willing to fight for and defend the Constitution...and what it stands for. Every single Vet and Soldier on this board, in this country, has SWORN an oath to do the same.
No hero worship here buddy. The only person I worship is the Lord God Almighty...thing is: I believe he was instrumental in the developement of our Constitution...and I hold on to our Constitution dearly.
What I find funny here is who went on a personal attack...folks who do that are usually on the losing side of an arguement.[;)]0 -
DWS...your insight is always quite refreshing...if absolutely nothing else, it stimulates the mind. Weigh in more often... 0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
quote:Originally posted by ECC
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
quote:Originally posted by Highball
What then did the Founders of this country believe in ? They didn't expect the Creator to stop the British at the bridge..they took up Arms and did the stopping themslves.
I don't, as stated, wish to turn this into another God/no God argument.
There HAS to be a basis for the Rights of the little people to be secure from the depravities of the rich and/or powerful.
What is the human failing that dumbly bows when asked to drop ones pants for the cheek inspection at the local airport. One would think that the airlines would be broke the next day..by independent folks registering their displeasure by refusing to fly.
You don't believe in the Constitution at all, so quit pretending.
Your only fixation is with your obsessions, and how you can force them on others.
Highball hasn't tried to force anything on anybody. All he's done is spoken his piece...trying to educate some folks...there's no forcing in that. As for his patriotism...he's probably one of the most patriotic folks on this board...a true Constitutionalist.
Total, complete bull.
"Highball
Advanced Member
8348 Posts Posted - 08/20/2007 : 10:07:09 PM
________________________________________
I believe that the Belercous's of the world cannot be reasoned with.
They are a product of sick minds..law professors and Elitists that have sold their souls to the devil.
The dirty little fact that is like a 10 ton elephant in the room is...What the Founders meant by the Second Amendment is actually not relevant anymore.
Not a bit.
We the descendents of the Founders are going to decide one of these fine days exactly what "Freedom" means concerning the Second Amendment..and if the Belercouses and TrFoxes and NRAs' of the world win, Tyranny will exact a terrible toll on them.and us.
Given that we who believe in Freedom win.any of them ever lying his way into office and then revealing their anti-gun bias will be imprisoned as traitors to this country."
Let me know when you find the Constitutional basis for that ECC.
Meanwhile get over your hero worship of someone who would even begin to purport that kind of garbage.
"True Constitutionalist"?
True Brown Shirt dictator, whose only agenda is to force his worldview on everyone else who takes a breath.
He wouldn't know the Constitution if it was used to wipe his butt.
________________________________________
"Tax evasion is illegal; tax avoidance is an art form"
Your highlighted and underlined part of his statement sounds EXACTLY like a true Constitutionalist to me...someone who's willing to fight for and defend the Constitution...and what it stands for. Every single Vet and Soldier on this board, in this country, has SWORN an oath to do the same.
No hero worship here buddy. The only person I worship is the Lord God Almighty...thing is: I believe he was instrumental in the developement of our Constitution...and I hold on to our Constitution dearly.
What I find funny here is who went on a personal attack...folks who do that are usually on the losing side of an arguement.[;)]
Sorry ECC, there was some tiny little detail about a trial before you were considered guilty, but you and highball don't need that, do you.
It also seems to be the case that revealing a bias is not exactly the kind of thing that the Constitution says you should be guilty of treason for believing, but you go right ahead with your version of "freedom".
There is nothing in that statement of highball's that even comes close to the "rule of law" or the definition of treason, but then he never really did have a grip on the Constitution.
Do you?
Or do you just follow his lead like a good little boy.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Then I am guessing..not to put words in your mouth, here..but the great shining beacon of Freedom and Rights of America..and Americans..was nothing but a gauzy film of pretense..perhaps from the first day of said 'Freedom'..??
Do you not think at all that there was a glorious period of time that the Elites were stymied..afraid to extend their gory hands to grab yet again EVERYTHING in their paths..here in America ? That for the first time in history..the common man had a chance ?
Leave out of the mix the apathy and ignorance of the 'common man'..he believing that his rulers do things for the 'common good'...
At last check, our Constitution was penned by elites, not commoners. And that slavery persisted for nearly 100 years following is poor testimony to "the great shining beacon of Freedom and Rights of America". I suppose it's all a matter of perspective: Perhaps RKBA was put in there not because the elites gave a crap, but because they needed a standing militia of commoners to fight the British.
And of course all this talk about the "common good" is a bucket of moist ca-ca as well. Who decides what the "common good" is? You or Sarah Brady? And that is because...?0 -
Or could it be that highball is just a complete, unadulterated troll, whose only agenda is controversy?
"Highball
Advanced Member
8187 Posts Posted - 09/09/2007 : 9:58:50 PM
________________________________________
HEY BANDIT !!! You are GOOD...and will fit right IN hereabouts !!
You...PERSONALLY..started a fight among the old guys. .roped in a MODERATOR...and generated at least ONE more...perhaps TWO more threads carrying the fight out across the board..!!!
Jeeze...I got to work HARD doing what YOU did offhand !! I, sir, take my hat off to you..a master !!
Welcome..and hope to see more magic in the future."
One has to wonder if the only reason might just be trolling for entertainment, and the devoted slaves are just part of the window dressing.
What do you devoted devotees think about that concept?
One ought to at least wonder about that statement from your hero and savior.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
Or could it be that highball is just a complete, unadulterated troll, whose only agenda is controversy?
"Highball
Advanced Member
8187 Posts Posted - 09/09/2007 : 9:58:50 PM
________________________________________
HEY BANDIT !!! You are GOOD...and will fit right IN hereabouts !!
You...PERSONALLY..started a fight among the old guys. .roped in a MODERATOR...and generated at least ONE more...perhaps TWO more threads carrying the fight out across the board..!!!
Jeeze...I got to work HARD doing what YOU did offhand !! I, sir, take my hat off to you..a master !!
Welcome..and hope to see more magic in the future."
One has to wonder if the only reason might just be trolling for entertainment, and the devoted slaves are just part of the window dressing.
What do you devoted devotees think about that concept?
One ought to at least wonder about that statement from your hero and savior.
Like I said: Those who go on personal attacks are usually on the losing end of an argument.
Good night folks.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
Or could it be that highball is just a complete, unadulterated troll, whose only agenda is controversy?
"Highball
Advanced Member
8187 Posts Posted - 09/09/2007 : 9:58:50 PM
________________________________________
HEY BANDIT !!! You are GOOD...and will fit right IN hereabouts !!
You...PERSONALLY..started a fight among the old guys. .roped in a MODERATOR...and generated at least ONE more...perhaps TWO more threads carrying the fight out across the board..!!!
Jeeze...I got to work HARD doing what YOU did offhand !! I, sir, take my hat off to you..a master !!
Welcome..and hope to see more magic in the future."
One has to wonder if the only reason might just be trolling for entertainment, and the devoted slaves are just part of the window dressing.
What do you devoted devotees think about that concept?
One ought to at least wonder about that statement from your hero and savior.
Like I said: Those who go on personal attacks are usually on the losing end of an argument.
Good night folks.
Of course, it makes no difference what your hero has to say, he must be right regardless.
Any statement that does not praise him to the heavens is an insult, and that is not to be tolerated for a God.
Did you even bother to read the posts for content?
Do you really agree with that?
Damn!
All Hail highball.
Where is the throne, so that I may bow down also?0 -
DWS- Not everyone has to agree in order to establish "agreement." In most cases it takes a majority because as you know obtaining a unanimous opinion amongst a group would be nearly impossible.
Yes, the elite often do impose their will on the masses. And as long as the masses do not rise up and kill the elite then they are in fact agreeing to the imposition. When they revolt and hang the powerful elite (or at least vote them out of office) then they are in disagreement.
I have thought that it would be interesting if we had a system where once each year there would be a referendum among the entire adult population. Everyone could vote for one member of Congress to execute. If any member pissed off enough people he could find himself swinging on the gallows. I bet much of that arrogant attitude and condescending lecturing to the people and acting like they know what's best for us evaporate.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
quote:Originally posted by Highball
What then did the Founders of this country believe in ? They didn't expect the Creator to stop the British at the bridge..they took up Arms and did the stopping themslves.
I don't, as stated, wish to turn this into another God/no God argument.
There HAS to be a basis for the Rights of the little people to be secure from the depravities of the rich and/or powerful.
What is the human failing that dumbly bows when asked to drop ones pants for the cheek inspection at the local airport. One would think that the airlines would be broke the next day..by independent folks registering their displeasure by refusing to fly.
You don't believe in the Constitution at all, so quit pretending.
Your only fixation is with your obsessions, and how you can force them on others.
Highball hasn't tried to force anything on anybody. All he's done is spoken his piece...trying to educate some folks...there's no forcing in that. As for his patriotism...he's probably one of the most patriotic folks on this board...a true Constitutionalist.
Well said Eric.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
A bit of masochism has struck me.
I want a disertation on "If Rights don't come from God..Where EXACTLY do they spring from ?"
Given that there is no God..then are Rights merely man-made..and subject to revision at the whim of the strongest man around ?
I wish no argument of God/no God..just an attempt to grasp understanding of the issue.
Many (perhaps all) things have a right and wrong. An adult has the power to harm/abuse a tiny baby, but I doubt any person in the world would try and claim that just because the adult has the "might" to harm the baby, then that makes the action "right". Hell, even from half way around the world it is easy to understand that a tiny baby being harmed is evil and wrong.
That is just one of numerous examples.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Highball
A bit of masochism has struck me.
I want a disertation on "If Rights don't come from God..Where EXACTLY do they spring from ?"
Given that there is no God..then are Rights merely man-made..and subject to revision at the whim of the strongest man around ?
I wish no argument of God/no God..just an attempt to grasp understanding of the issue.
Many (perhaps all) things have a right and wrong. An adult has the power to harm/abuse a tiny baby, but I doubt any person in the world would try and claim that just because the adult has the "might" to harm the baby, then that makes the action "right". Hell, even from half way around the world it is easy to understand that a tiny baby being harmed is evil and wrong.
That is just one of numerous examples.
Example of what?
There is nothing inherent about a baby being abandoned at one's doorstep that compels one to take it in. Indeed, among the Mundugumor of New Guinea, such event would be viewed as food left by the gods, to be promptly cooked over a spit and served with fresh bananas. That you or anyone would suggest that the societal norms and mores of your own culture were somehow handed down from a Creator is simply empirically false, and this as can be evidenced by the diversity of such norms and mores from society to society and within the same society at different points in time.
Get over it.0 -
50 million babies have been murdered in the last 30 years..right here in the good 'ol U.S.of A....
All with the willing consent of the majority of the population.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
50 million babies have been murdered in the last 30 years..right here in the good 'ol U.S.of A....
All with the willing consent of the majority of the population.
QED0 -
Who's god?? Which one is the "one true god?" Are the Methodists right? Or the Baptists? or the Catholics?(the pope says that if you are not a catholic you will burn in hell) or the Buddhists? or the Hindus?
God is created by men in order to explain what man cannot explain due to a lack of knowledge.
0 -
As I sit here reading this post, I think back on my American History. It's been to long ago and I may have even skipped a class or 2 back then.
We (our founders) came to America so that we could choose the type of religion we wanted to pursue. So with freedom religion, one would think God would be the center of all things we did.
Our Bill of Rights, were written by men, with the sprit of God in mind. Who else could grant the common man a right that could not be taken away? Congress at the time placed God higher then them self. Which would be true if one believed in the 10 Commandments.
Now today 2007 where are our rights going? We can see now God is being taken out of schools, Congress and every other place we think. It seems our laws will break down as time goes on because there is no fear of God. So it will be man who makes the laws.
I have learned one hell of a lot from Highball and TR Fox in their effort to get people to understand our rights. I read what they have to say and swirl it around on my mind for a bit before I make up my mind. One may not agree with another but, how else can one learn without hearing from others.
bandit440 -
Prior to saying anything else, I will paraphrase from something I read a long time ago, which applies to the possibility of my worshipping anyone, be it Highball or the founding fathers: "I show respect. What some seem to wish from me is reverence -- worship. That I reserve for God and men better than myself. No man has yet attained either distinction."
I clicked on Highball's original post, to be honest, actually thinking, "Well, what's he going to say, now?" And I had no intentions of responding -- except that he posed a perfectly valid question; unless, of course, it being Highball, then by definition nothing he says can be valid.
Somewhere midway through the various responses, a mushroom cloud went up, and, from there to the point at which I write this, the thread has degenerated into a series of increasingly angry attacks and responses. The most likely defense of having taken part in this process will probably be either, "Highball is a (choose the term of endearment you prefer)" or "Highball has offended too many people too many times to be allowed to simply post without someone stepping in to remind everyone else of how offensive he is." Or, "Highball is a troll."
Not having viewed a picture of the man, his kinship to trolls is something I can't comment on. If you're referring to the practice of baiting a hook and cruising along until something bites, are you suggesting that I or any other participant on this forum has no more intelligence than a fish? Leaving off the feeble attempt at humor -- if someone is in fact trolling, it's still up to you and me as to whether or not we're going to bite. From the sounds of it, the simple fact of seeing the name "Highball" attached to a topic ought to be all the more warning some of us need -- sort of an "Enter At Your Own Risk" effect.
In an earlier thread I ripped on Highball because, right, wrong, or indifferent, I felt he found excessive and unjustified fault with my practice of having an ongoing dialogue with "the enemy", if that is how one views my habit of debating politely with those who disagree with my stance on gun control and related legal issues. In this case, it's now those who seem up in arms against Highball that I feel the need to remind -- with the inalienable right of free speech (whatever its divine, moral, or legal source) comes the blessed right to ignore those who offend. This is particularly applicable in situations where the alleged offense did not involve posting in a perhaps disruptive manner on a thread already in progress.
And....
Yes, the founding fathers were elites, and imperfect ones at that. Alexander Hamilton, in particular, respected the common man only in the sense of said man being an effective soldier, servant, or beast of burden. Those who read and judge history through the lens of modern thought and standards, are doomed to have no understanding whatsoever of that history. Even today, most decisions are made by elites; that's the status one attains, often unfairly, through education and wealth. However, my experience with the vast majority of "common people" results in my being thankful they aren't calling the shots, because most have no conception or concern as to what's happening, or why, outside their own very small corners of the world. Given the greater availability of education in this country, today, than in Colonial times, I feel safe in assuming that this ignorance was even more widespread when Washington, Jefferson, and the other high-and-mighties led this nation through its own birthing and early childhood.
Those who are exceptions to this very broad generalization about "reg'lar folks", need not express outrage -- I'm obviously not talking about you, am I?
It's also worth remembering that every one of the "elites" of the Revolutionary period lived, from 1775 to 1783, with nooses around their necks. The failure of the Revolution wouldn't have meant scandal or mere financial and social ruin; it would have meant a very likely slow and painful death for each and every ringleader eventually captured by the British.
To take one "elite" in particular, one who seems to represent a current flash point in the debate as to whether the founders were great men, or scummy elites who managed to get a few things done right in spite of their own worse natures -- Thomas Jefferson. On one hand, the author of the Declaration of Independence. On the other, owner and sexual exploiter of slaves. Both are true. For those who take their stand on the second view, allow me to point something out: without making justifications for slavery, which was and always will be an abomination, and a black stain on our history -- without it, we would have no history. Assuming the human race had made it to a point where the American Colonies even existed, the Jefferson clan, lacking the leisure and wealth that the profit from their slaves provided, would have been unable to provide their children, Thomas included, the education that included extensive reading of the Greeks, Montaigne, Locke, and others; from which, in the course of much thinking that his wealth and position permitted him to do, and by borrowing liberally from the writings of his fellow elites, our third president distilled the essence of the Declaration, and the thoughts that inspired others such as James Madison to eventually pen the Constitution of the United States.
We don't live in a perfect world. Our leaders, past and present, are far from perfect men and women. Find fault with them as human beings, if you're so inclined, but judge their actions in the context of the time in which they lived, and allow the possibility that the outcome -- the creation of the United States, what the United States has done for the human race and the world, over the past couple of centuries -- is far more good than bad.0 -
quote:Originally posted by bandit44
As I sit here reading this post, I think back on my American History. It's been to long ago and I may have even skipped a class or 2 back then.
We (our founders) came to America so that we could choose the type of religion we wanted to pursue. So with freedom religion, one would think God would be the center of all things we did.
Our Bill of Rights, were written by men, with the sprit of God in mind. Who else could grant the common man a right that could not be taken away? Congress at the time placed God higher then them self. Which would be true if one believed in the 10 Commandments.
Now today 2007 where are our rights going? We can see now God is being taken out of schools, Congress and every other place we think. It seems our laws will break down as time goes on because there is no fear of God. So it will be man who makes the laws.
I'm afraid there is counter-argument of the table which your reply conveniently avoids. Mere iteration of a personal view is not on that account a reasoned response; it is merely iteration of a personal view. If someone says "All swans are white", and somebody else produces a black swan, the matter is not settled by the first person simply insisting "All swans are white". Of course you are entitled to your view; but that does not address any view opposing it. And therein lies the problem: You confuse what is true for you with what is true. Big mistake.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dcon12
Two wrongs don't make a right but three lefts do. Don
Three lefts and a right will make a visit to the canvas.0 -
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by bandit44
As I sit here reading this post, I think back on my American History. It's been to long ago and I may have even skipped a class or 2 back then.
We (our founders) came to America so that we could choose the type of religion we wanted to pursue. So with freedom religion, one would think God would be the center of all things we did.
Our Bill of Rights, were written by men, with the sprit of God in mind. Who else could grant the common man a right that could not be taken away? Congress at the time placed God higher then them self. Which would be true if one believed in the 10 Commandments.
Now today 2007 where are our rights going? We can see now God is being taken out of schools, Congress and every other place we think. It seems our laws will break down as time goes on because there is no fear of God. So it will be man who makes the laws.
I'm afraid there is counter-argument of the table which your reply conveniently avoids. Mere iteration of a personal view is not on that account a reasoned response; it is merely iteration of a personal view. If someone says "All swans are white", and somebody else produces a black swan, the matter is not settled by the first person simply insisting "All swans are white". Of course you are entitled to your view; but that does not address any view opposing it. And therein lies the problem: You confuse what is true for you with what is true. Big mistake.
DWS,
The point you make relates to one that I have laid out before. It begs the question; "What is the Truth"? The reason I say this is, the truth, at any given time is a generally accepted idea of what is perceived to be factual at that time and place in the world. It then makes sense to me to think that time, discoveries, events and differing cultures establish what they percieve as "The Truth".
This has the effect of establishing sociatial norms, followed by the establishment of Laws of the Land. Laws of the Land govern what is suitable for that society in that time and place. What I'm saying is: What worked then will not work or be acceptable now in a stated society. The view I see is that, we as a thinking and supposedly civilized society seem to seek solutions to percieved problems and implement them as society will permit, seemingly as a benefit to the common good.
Whether god comes into it may be related to a particular agenda, or not.0 -
Highball- I assume you are speaking of abortion when you say 50,000,000 babies have been murdered in the past 30 years?
First of all, do you wish to reconsider that figure? That would be 139,000 abortions every month, or 4,600 abortions everyday for the past 30 years. I cannot accept the actual number as being anywhere near that high.
Secondly, those who are "pro-choice" would argue that no babies have been murdered at all. They would say that pregnancies have been terminated, or at worst, fetuses were killed and those things are not yet human beings and do not have legal rights (please don't call me a baby killer, I am just repeating what a pro-choice advocate would tell you in this debate).
You have hit upon the problem: perception. YOU (and other people who are "pro-life") see abortion as murder, while others do not. SOME see gun control, to the point of a total ban on gun ownership, as not only good but necessary. You and I would strongly disagree with that notion. Who is right? Who gets their way? How do we decide? You don't seem to like the current system of living by the rule of law so what's your suggestion?
When you call for eliminating all gun laws, others may follow your lead and call for the elimination of laws THEY don't like. What if YOU happen to favor those laws they want removed? Then what? Or do you support eliminating all laws?0 -
There are no set of innate human rights.
"Right" are only such if you are willing to fight to make them so.
People will pretty much treat you about as lousy as you let them treat you, individually or as a society.
"Truth," as we have learned, is pretty much up to hisorical interpretation.
Same with "justice"....0 -
Saxon;
I haven't counted the abortions..I merely am repeating what the Anti-Abortion people claim...somewhere between 40 to 50 million. Propaganda ? Probably
..along with the claim that a baby with its head still inside the womb, with a scissors stuck into its brain `isn't a baby'..is propaganda.
Laws ? Where do you get the impression that I wish to abolish all laws ? Perhaps you misunderstand me. I wish to indeed abolish all laws directed at decent citizens.and come down like a ton of bricks on the perpetrators of crime. REAL crime..not government manufactured crime.
To get back to the basis of this thread..absent a belief in a Divinity, there can NO Rights that are `Unalienable"..therefore, we are subject to the whims of the rich and powerful.
Why ? Because they control the flow of information..(at least, up till the advent of the Internet) and they shaped public thought processes as they willed...and they conrol the men with the weapons.
That, basically, is the point I wished to clarify,in my own mind..and perhaps in the minds of those willing to peruse these posts.
DWS ? I am a simple man..not given to grey areas. I put words down I can understand. Is the above a fair summation ?0 -
Even with a belief in God no right is for certain. The Jewish people in Europe believed in God as the Nazis denied them every right possible including the right to keep living. This is what I have been saying, rights exist because we demand them, fight for them, establish them for ourselves and protect them. They are not a gift from anyone... not even God.
But everyone has a differing concept of what is and is not a right. People at the Brady Campaign laugh at loud at the notion that owning a gun is a right. Ask them about the Second Amendment and they'll happily tell you how it's all about maintaining the National Guard. Like my health care example earlier, lots of folks have lots of ideas about what is a right.
I agree the gun laws are too invasive, too many and too complex. I would like to see nearly all modified and a good many eliminated all together. I doubt it will happen. I will fight for I think I can reasonably expect and hope for more.0 -
quote:You have hit upon the problem: perception. YOU (and other people who are "pro-life") see abortion as murder, while others do not. SOME see gun control, to the point of a total ban on gun ownership, as not only good but necessary. You and I would strongly disagree with that notion. Who is right? Who gets their way? How do we decide? You don't seem to like the current system of living by the rule of law so what's your suggestion?
When you call for eliminating all gun laws, others may follow your lead and call for the elimination of laws THEY don't like. What if YOU happen to favor those laws they want removed? Then what? Or do you support eliminating all laws?
SP...the Constitution is right...and all law is subject to the Constitution. The Constitution speaks directly to any law with regards to the right to bear arms...so we know who's right and how to decide the matter (with regards to firearm ownership). The other issues you speak of are probably not covered directly by the Constitution...those matters would be open for debate.
BTW...I think we could cut out 99% of the 144,000+ pages of federal law and be 110% better off b/c of it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
...People at the Brady Campaign laugh at loud at the notion that owning a gun is a right. Ask them about the Second Amendment and they'll happily tell you how it's all about maintaining the National Guard.
then lets ask them where the hell is our national gaurd? they are INTERNATIONALLY deployed... we need citizens armed! the REAL MILITIA!0 -
quote:Even with a belief in God no right is for certain
A-BLOODYWELL-MAN !!
A people that will not fight for their rights are doomed to lose them.
Here we have a situation where 'Believers'...and 'nonBelievers' BOTH act as if the State is their God..and one would expect Believers to go to the wall sooner then those 'without intrinsic Rights'..due to the Nonbelievers belief that Man is the ultimate arbiter of justice.
BOTH parties are immoblized, however..in spite of grievous inroads on the freedoms SUPPOSED to be awarded a citizen.
The aspect of Veterans going overseas to fight for "American Freedom", at the behest of government..then coming home to less and less personal freedoms and 'Rights' has caused me much angst...over the years.0 -
In risk of copyright infringement, but still, here it is:
quote:"The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to group that self-interest has to individual. Nobody preached duty to these kids in a way they could understand -- that is, with a spanking. But the society they were in told them endlessly about their 'rights.' "
"The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any nature."
Mr. Dubois had paused. Somebody took the bait. "Sir? How about 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'?"
"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called 'natural human rights' that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.
"The third 'right'? -- the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives -- but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."0 -
Attempting to equate 'Rights' to the laws of Nature is specious..Nobody screams that the shark closing its jaws about your leg, preparing to drag you into the deeps is `Against your Rights'.nobody sane, any way.
Rights by definition deal with human relationships.and specifically, I would think, as a means to protect citizens against government.
The "Right `of the father would be the absolute `Right' to die for his children.WITHOUT the government telling him he COULDN'T.OR could do so.0 -
I don't know, Highball, the way I see, and I am sorry if I just reiterated what's been said here already, "right" is an illusion people have come up with once they hit a certain level of self-consciousnesses, so to speak. Or maybe a critical mass of ideas of all these "rights" was reached and reached the masses large enough to make a shift within the society as a whole. Before then, it was just the powerful that held all the rights, lords and their sheriffs had some "rights" and the peons had rights to work, pay taxes and all that and nobody complained if the balance was maintained. Very much like what we have now. So, to answer your question, "where exactly do they [rights] spring from?" - human imagination. Everyone just makes whatever pleases them of it, some people like to think it's God given, some say it's inalienable by nature, but in fact, it's all a combination of coincidences and accidents, everything else is whatever lie you wish to tell yourself to make yourself happy. Well, anything I have thought and think and might say on the subject is best summarized by that Heinlein's quote - the one and only "natural right" you have is that of freedom of thought, and only until "they" will be able to control that too. 0 -
Eric- You and I may argue that the Constitution in not ambiguous on the right to own arms, but obviously not everyone agrees otherwise we wouldn't have all the laws that we do. So far the SCOTUS have never ruled in favor of the 2nd being an individual right protecting the citizen's ability to own and carry the arms of his choice despite that being OUR interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd.
I maintain that all rights are established via negotiation and as yet we have failed to convince the opposition.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
66 comments