You said "That doesn’t change the fact that if a government declares everyone to have a right to free health care, it’s still a right. " You didn’t say “That doesn’t change the fact that if a government declares everyone to have a right to free health care, it’s still a right, by some ways of thinking.” It seemed to me that you were presenting your conception as the correct one.
I never claimed that positive rights are not a form of human rights. It is possible to have a right which can be thought of as “positive”. For instance, if you agree to pay me $1000 for some work, and I do the work, then I have a right to $1000 of your money. However, there are two important factors to notice about that scenario: one, the right is created, and two, both the who and whom are specified. A negative right is symmetrical: it is wrong for me to censor you, and it is wrong for you to censor me. However, a positive right is asymmetrical: you owe me $1000, but I don’t owe you $1000. Assymmetry implies two things. First, actors must be specified. To state people have the right to free speech, no actors must be specified, because this right applies equally regardless of who and whom. Secondly, there must be some origin for the assymmetry. If we accept the principle that “all men all created equal” then any difference between them must arise through events, not simply exist without any cause. Looking at the Declaration, I see that neither of these conditions are met. It does not specify from whom these rights are owed, and it does not specify how these rights are obtained.
BTW, which of the four definitions do you think that the “rights” of the Declaration fulfill?
Even if this is true (and I don’t think it is), that’s not really much of a response. It’s like responding to the question “Why do you think that Bush is a liar?” with “Texas is rife with liars”.
It says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn’t say the right to keep and bear guns shall not be infringed, it does not say that the right to keep and bear arms for a militia shall not be infringed, it says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
And I don’t see what your little poll is supposed to prove.
Well, to know that I would have to know what you mean by limitations to the 2nd. In the most literal sense, it’s obvious that there are limitations to the 2nd. For instance, no one has been able to use the 2nd to develop cold fusion. But I don’t think that’s what you mean.
My little poll proves that a small sample of Americans think of arms as guns. Beyond that? Nothing.
What might it suggest? Well, now. Maybe it suggests that most American men think of guns when they hear “arms”, especially in the 2nd.
Limitations to the 2nd? That’s easy. It’s what this whole silly arguement is about. I think “arms” in the amendment is limited to guns, you disagree.
And as for the “militia” thing? That’s the most argued part of the 2nd, and I can’t prove either side. I agree, though, with the “logical” side of the debate.
Let me summarize our conversation as I understand it, because I’m still trying to figure out what you’re getting at.
You assert that “arms” means “guns”, because that’s what it makes you think of.
I counter by saying that there’s no reason to think arms means anything but exactly what the word means.
You accuse me of being a paranoid gun nut using a slippery slope argument. This is the point where I get confused.
I respond with “???” and “How is my assertion that arms means arms a slippery slope argument?”
The only way I can interpret your position is thus: You believe that nothing but firearms are protected by the second amendment. I believe it is inclusive of all arms. You believe this is a slippery slope argument, and that I’m paranoid and making a pre-emptive argument against non-firearm arms bans.
Could you clarify your position already? Feel free to do it step by step.
Btw, your poll isn’t very scientific and even if it were it’s irrelevant. What people think doesn’t determine what it means and what it was intended to mean.
You still haven’t provided any real shred of evidence or even logic behind the assertion that arms is arbitrarily limited to “firearms”.
The issue of rights seems straight forward enough IMO.
You have the right to do what you can get away with and not be caught. This seems to be the primary right.
The humanistic argument amends this right by attempting to get people to agree that if it causes or allows the possibility of human slavery, it is not a meaningful right, and does not lead to a meaningful existence.
Try getting from a) to b) with a group of people, and it will become obvious that it is difficult to argue the taking of steps to make the exersize of the primary right more difficult to achieve. Whether it be through wording or technology, if it takes away the primary right noted here, people will resist, primarily authority figures.
It’s really a bit of a sick joke. Basically a bunch of people are trying to figure out how to prove the humanist approach against laughable odds.
If you look at the constitution, it is clear that the final draft actually coded human slavery as law. Blacks were 3/5ths human and females could not vote. The “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” doesn’t touch the self referrential issues of slavery, because the framers just really didn’t care. They were might makes righters and talented propogandists.
It’s not particularly meaningful if you have a humanist bone in your body, to be told that a particular candidate or decision is based upon the “spirit of the constitution”. Outlawing racial slavery is much different than outlawing human slavery. It is very clear that the constiution nor the framers had zero intent to eradicate or even touch the topic of human slavery.
It is clear that neither the framers themselves nor their words in the constitution were acting with the intent to eradicate or address the topic of human slavery when forming this government. The use of ‘rights’, is arguably “might makes right” by not placing hard lines on the self-referrential problems that emerge when addressing a human population. Sort of a wink, wink
And that’s the spirit of the constitution, and no politician is contradicting US law by practicing might makes right flagrantly or covertly.
“paranoid gun nut”? :eek:
Don’t you hate it when an adversary isn’t nasty enough?
Anyway, you didn’t just say “arms means arms”. You (or The Ryan) said that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” guarantees the right to have (bear) pointy sticks. Regardless of what the rest of the Amendment says.
Where does the “regardless of the rest of the Amendment” part come from? Is there a part of the Amendment that says “this does not apply to pointy sticks”?
Counter a question with a question, will we?
Where did ol’ mangeorge nastily call anyone a paranoid gun nut?
But, with great kindness as always, I reply;
No, of course not. Not explicitly anyway. But there is (argueably, I agree) a part (all the rest of it) that says “this does apply to a militia, to ensure the security of a free state”.
I went and read a lot about the Second Amendment, most of it here, and the arms part is most often referred to as guns. firearms, weapons, or again as arms. Rarely as sticks, pointy or not. It seems I’m not alone in my assumptions. In fact, I’ve got some pretty esteemed company.
If firearms had never been invented, and the common weapon for soldiers was the sword, do you think there would be no second amendment? Is the logic and meaning behind it only applicable to firearms?
