View Single Post
Old 08-29-2019, 07:54 PM
Abatis is offline
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Maybe it is a mite hard to believe that someone who posts

is interested in a reasoned discussion?
I only have the words he types to ascertain his beliefs.

Perhaps you should review the exchange between him and I.

To my very focused on the USA post he writes; "If people have some natural right to own firearms, why don't people in other countries have this right?". That he's bringing in "other countries" and how the existence of governments that don't respect the right somehow impugns the existence of unalienable rights, meant to me he is denying the legitimacy of the US "conferred powers / retained rights" system . . .

He doubles down with, "You have the right to own a firearm for one reason only - you live in a country where the government gives you that right." From that I did begin assuming that he believes the system in "other countries", where rights flow from, are given by the government, is a preferred one.

I reply with a post that I took the time to make as comprehensive as I could, a post that would lay-out with specifics, what "unalienable rights" are and from where they emanate.

It is all ignored and he replies with "My point is that it's obviously wrong to speak of unalienable rights while observing these rights don't exist in other countries. That's proof that these rights are, in fact, quite alienable."

So, I'm thinking to myself, do I assume he is just sloppy with the "alienable" terminology or is he "obviously wrong" in his definition or is it as simple as he just holds a deep contempt for the "unalienable rights" concept?

Why claim I'm "obviously wrong" when no explanation or support for that emphatic statement is provided; who's he trying to convince, himself?

My first intuition was to just ignore him from his first post to me, I was "obviously wrong" in thinking replying to him might be a worthwhile expenditure of time.