I’m not anti-gun at all, and I also agree with these measures.
Provided the NRA’s “slippery-slope rhetoric” isn’t a realistic concern that social engineers are out to eliminate the private possession of weapons from society, as many are on record as being in favor of.
The above proposal sounds fine, provided it was clearly understood that it’s NOT saying that society should have the fewest possible number of guns. And therein lies the problem; that’s precisely what many people want.
I asked a simple question, and I have no intention of jumping through any hoops or signing any agreements just for the possibility of getting a straight answer from you. If anyone else would care to answer the simple question I asked, it would be much appreciated.
Oh… printed sticks.
puts away handful of loganberries
Here’s what I believe:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Note "among these ".
**Do you accept these as natural rights? **
I don’t even know what natural rights are yet, which should be evident by the questions I am asking. Do you understand the initial question I asked? If no, I will try to rephrase it. If yes, do you have any intention, beyond listing a part of the Declaration of Independence, of just giving me what you consider to be a complete(as possible) list of “natural rights”?
Even if you take the militia clause as meaning only militia members have a right to guns it certainly doesn’t give congress the right to disarm militia members just because congress created a large standing army or even a national guard. Militia membership wasn’t limited to a certain group of people rather it was understood that the entire citizenry constituted the militia save a few government officials.
At the time it was understood that every male age 18 -45 was a member of the militia and therefore were protected against being disarmed by congress. The equal protection clause extends those rights to all citizens including women and the aged and the right has been incorporated against the states which means that the states also lack the right to disarm the militia meaning even if you don’t view it as an individual right it is a de facto prohibition on government at any level from disarming the citizenry without due process.
“Vast minority.” Interesting use of words. Is that like the “silent majority”?
Is a complete list necessary before you can engage in discussion? What if no complete list exists, or a complete list is in dispute? I think it’s sufficient to understand the concept of the term, with a few illustrative examples to help out. The DoI does that. But in case that’s not enough, the wiki does a fine job:
.
Jefferson lifted from Locke in crafting the DoI. Useless trivia - I named my first dog Locke.
It happened to be the question I asked. It was a VERY simple question that had the word “List” in it-Not “definition”, “synonym” or “history”-“List”.
Is there some problem with this question? I mean, I’ve already said that the list could be complete according to your own standards, so this nonsense about no totally complete list existing really isn’'t a problem.
Maybe the problem is that if you actually complied with my simple request and offered up what you consider to be a comprehensive list of “Natural Rights”, others who also promote the idea of “Natural Rights” but have a different list in mind might start questioning you the next time you use the term vaguely.
I guess as long as nobody defines which rights are specifically “Natural”, everybody is on the same page…but it seems to me that page is pretty damn empty.
It’s a poor question. Imagine the following:
**A: **The universe is huge, everything you see is in it.
**B: **Is there a list of everything that is in the universe?
**A: **well, no one knows for sure, but for sure the things that you see in front of you like the table, and the ground you’re standing on, those are in the universe.
B: Is that every single thing? Is that a complete list?
**A: **Well no.
**B: **Well, where is the list? It’s should be easy to identify such a list!
A: Can we agree that the cup you’re holding is in the universe?
B: I asked for a list! I guess nothing is in the universe then.
Even if the bounds of what are contained within the construct of Natural Rights are not well defined, they certainly include those things mentioned in the DoI. It could be an interesting discussion what other things might be included - but that can’t happen if having a complete list is a hurdle to overcome. Might as well try and describe everything in the universe.
Wow! I never imagined there were trillions of “Natural Rights”.
I’m sorry to post here.
Because I feel that Czarcasm as the best argument here. He’s asking a simple question – you contend that there are natural rights; he’s asking where they are defined and how one might recognize them. If I contend that I have a natural right to Z, how is he to evaluate the truth of that claim?
Bone’s response is to suggest that there are other things that exist but cannot be ennumerated. That’s true, but unhelpful - we can define a set of characteristics that these things share even if we cannot list them. But then we must be open to admitting ALL things that share those characteristics, or else we become Angus trying to define a Scotsman.
The characteristics were described above. The evaluation can be performed by comparing the claim to the characteristics. Obviously whether something conforms to those is debatable, but that is a starting point. If you were to say you have a natural right to drive 150mph anywhere you want, then we could look and see if that conforms to the characteristics of a natural right - is the ability to drive at that speed not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable? I’d say no. Do you have a natural right to not be killed without justification? I’d say yes.
But to claim ignorance of what a natural right even is because a complete list hasn’t been produced is not productive. It’s clear what the characteristics are. It’s clear that some things fall within those characteristics.
But without comparing notes with others about what they believe are natural rights what isn’t clear is if your interpretation and the interpretation of others match up. Would it help if I narrow it down from the trillions of natural rights down to, say…your top ten most important?
That clarity comes from discourse. How about top 3?
Clarity also comes from giving straight answers to questions. I said “top 10” because the line from the D of I has already been given(Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness), and I thought that after that claim that there were an uncountable number of them ten would surely be easy to come up with.
An answer you don’t like is not necessarily a non-straight answer. When you suggest a top 10, my response is “no”. Clear right? You’ve thus far been unwilling to stipulate those 3, so we’re talking incremental steps here.
I’m sorry, but to borrow some dialogue from Heinlein, what right to life does a man drowning have? The ocean will not harken to his cries. What right to liberty does the man languishing in prison have?
The pursuit of happiness is indeed a natural right, insofar as anyone alive cannot be forced to stop “pursuing” happiness. Throw him in a dungeon or crown him king of kings, he is always free to pursue happiness, but neither wise men nor subtle drugs can ensure that he reaches that goal.
To be clear: I personally believe there are rights that our Creator intended for us to have, as befits the dignity inherent to the human soul. But I cannot prove that assertion or ask that it be accepted as the basis for secular legislation.