Yes, and you lost.
-
Nobody invoked the “Name of God.” The theory of natural rights is considered “self-evident” by our FF.
-
So, again, if you would answer my question…I do not believe you mean what you suggest. You wouldn’t say that if a Constitutional Amendment of “Let’s Kill All Blacks” vs. “Let’s Don’t Kill All Blacks” came up for a vote that is “up for debate” or that “people have different opinions” on it.
So what do you base your overriding morality about policy A which is a good subject for a healthy debate versus policy B, like the above, which I assume you would not think is the subject of a healthy debate in any decent or moral society.
Where do your ideas of morality come from if not from natural law?
Did you actually not understand your own question? That must be confusing for you.
Regards,
Shodan
He’s either accusing you of being a Tory (Loyalist) or a supporter of The CSA. Or maybe both. Or maybe of being a chocolate fudge sundae. Or maybe you are right and he doesn’t understand his own question. His arguments in this thread do not betray a broad or deep understanding of the issue. I confess that I skip his posts most of the time since he always says the same things in every one of these gun threads. Has he played the “my side is in favor of reducing the number of deaths” card yet in this thread?
You seem to be confused.
You obviously hear what you want to hear. Currently, you have the option of defending yourself. If you prefer a beating, being raped, or murdered, that’s your choice. Personally, I like the idea of being able to defend myself, if necessary, while waiting for the police to arrive.
Hahahaha. You’re a hoot. You’re idea of reasonable measures doesn’t sound reasonable to many voters, but everyone is still entitled to their own opinions. And they should vote accordingly.
“Weaponizing 2A”? Is that a thing on your side? The 2nd is still about the unalienable right to bear arms. I guess the 2nd was “weaponized” way back in 1789.
If you, and yours, still can’t seem to use the proper terms, or understand the mechanical functions, of something they wish to ban, why should anyone with an understanding firearms, and their mechanical functions, believe the propagandized horseshit being spewed by the anti-2nd zealots? Gosh, just because we don’t know what we’re talking about, that doesn’t mean that we don’t know what we’re talking about. :rolleyes: It’s just not very convincing.
I’ve heard, first hand, gun control advocates boast about things like bursting into tears just from touching a gun and not knowing or caring what any differences of type or function were. These are not people I trust to make or keep any bargain to do with gun rights.
Hmmm. Sounds like we have a stalemate. A stalemate that has existed since, at least, 1968. Gun banners can’t be trusted. Anti-2nd zealots can’t be trusted. Registration is just another step towards confiscation.
So it comes down to a vote, and your side simply does not have the votes to change the 2nd Amendment. Plus, it doesn’t appear that your side is able to make a convincing argument that will actually convince anyone to change their mind.
My side?
Mea culpa. Change every “your side” to read “their side”.
You are so close to getting why it’s important.
No, he’s really not.
No one wrote “Name of God.” Do you claim nobody wrote ‘God-given’? And, regardless of how worthy the "FF"s may have been, do you understand the idiocy of pretending they are the high arbiters of which rights are “natural rights”? Was it natural that “three fifths of all other Persons” should be added to an enumeration? I understand that some people observe the Sabbath because of what the Finger of God wrote. Do you put the FF’s on the same high pedestal as Allah? If not, let’s just omit them from the discussion, OK? … Unless this all is supposed to boil down to a pissing contest: “Does Noam Chomsky or James Madison have the higher IQ?”
And what is with the asinine question about “Let’s Kill All Blacks”? Why don’t you answer my question, and tell us if you agree with me that society should seek to evaluate policies based on [wait for it] the merits of those policies? If guns are good, fine. If they’re bad, fine. What on Earth does poppycock about “natural rights” have to do with anything?
I think by the logic (so to speak) of his position that he would have been a loyalist during the American Revolution. If you don’t have a right unless the government says you do, the British government did not say there was a right to secede, therefore America did not have a right to secede.
But it was such a bizarre non sequitur. We spend some pages discussing how the Founding Fathers believed rights came from God, and they said so in the Declaration of Independence. Then, pages later, he asked where it is stated that rights come from God. So I mention what has already been discussed, that it is stated in the DoI, and his response is “you lost”. Lost what?
I can’t believe he is claiming that the DoI doesn’t say that people are endowed by their Creator with rights, because, well, it does. I get that he doesn’t want that to be true, but that is what it says. And if rights only exist if the government says so, then the American Revolution was wrong.
And further, the US government does say that we have a right to keep and bear arms. An individual right - see Heller. So even if you accept his position, he’s still wrong. If God granted the right, then we have the right. If government granted the right, then we have the right.
Regards,
Shodan
I wonder what C. J. Cregg’s stance on gun control is.
Rights exists only in laws and societies. In the wild it means squat as we do what the hell we wants.
No such thing as god-given rights. You do or you don’t.
But we don’t live in the wild. We live in a society that values fundamental liberty interests and one of those particular liberty interests is a right to self defense and the ownership of reasonable tools to effectuate that interest.
Under our founding system, we have held it to be “self-evident” that no government that would outlaw basic fundamental liberties is a legitimate government and it would be the right and the duty of the people to form a new government in that instance.
Again, if we toss aside the idea of natural law, then there is no baseline upon which to judge right and wrong. The SS officer in my example is on no lower moral footing than any of us arguing against him. We are just having a simple policy disagreement.
Do you care to point out how that conclusion is incorrect?
That’s why governments are instituted among men, to secure those rights.
Does not follow.
Regards,
Shodan
The usual way I’ve always understood the intersection of natural law and the 2nd Amendment is as follows:
Natural Law: People have an inherent right to defend themselves and their families, and shouldn’t be forced to rely on outside agencies (i.e. police) to do it for them, especially in situations where that protection may be spotty, delayed or ineffective.
<environmental condition>: Guns are the most effective tool for defending oneself- as the saying goes, “God made men, Sam Colt made them equal.” In other words, with a pistol in her hand, a 95 lb 90 year old woman is a credible threat to a 270 lb, 6’6" man.
So from there, they interpret the 2nd Amendment as being an integral legal guarantee of being able to defend themselves and their families, even though reading while viewing it through the lens of history doesn’t (IMO) really lend the amendment to a personal defense interpretation. *Heller *notwithstanding.
So if you get someone who is very concerned with personal defense, they’re going to attach themselves to the 2nd Amendment like a limpet with something to prove.
Personally, I’ve found that the people who are most concerned about personal defense are usually not the types who you’d expect. I’d have expected women who have to be in relatively dangerous areas to be the most bullish about being able to defend themselves. But nope, it’s always the grown white guys who live in the far suburbs who make the most noise about that. I don’t think it’s racism, per se, but they seem to have a worldview that the world is overrun with swarms of violent crooks out there to steal your stuff, rape your women, and kill you, if not for the continuous presence of the police, and in the odd moments when the cops aren’t nearby, the presence of their trusty pistol/rifle/shotgun. Trying to take that gun from them leaves them feeling exposed to that super-violent, amoral world out there.