Originally Posted by jinx
Right on, Buster.

Does anyone else completely tune people out once they start throwing around "you conservatives" or "you liberals" as an argument?
Agreed.

Yup, with you all on that.
Can we include "you fascists" too please? :)

I don't buy that--you try to change people's minds on here all the time. Okay, some of us are from the same society, but you've discussed things with Brits and Aussies too, and worked to convince them of what you believe. Hell, your whole position on the gun topics is that taking a life is an inherently horrible thing, even if it's a criminal's life. You have a strong sense of right and wrong, Spexx, which means you can't be a complete moral relativist.

You seem to be getting hung up on the idea that we are innately aware of these natural rights and will always act on them. Obviously that's not true. But if it's wrong to arbitrarily kill a child--if it's wrong to kill a thief trying to steal your chewing gum--then you have already recognized that that person has an inherent right to live. That right supercedes all societal conventions, unless you believe in total moral relativism.

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

There might be a few criminals who'd consider that, but I wouldn't bank on it as fact for a reason to own a gun. If it were, there'd be much less crime everywhere.

There is where there are concealed carry laws. That's been proven in every state that has enacted them.

You are welcome to post a sign on the front of your house indicating your distate for firearms and that you are weapon-free and see how you fare against a non-posted house.

Why, thanks, wolf.

It'd be hard to do though, considering I live in a condo building. Maybe I could hang a sign out my window, see what happens.

Except Philadelphia, apparently.

Actually, the problem in Philadelphia is that they so heavily regulate concealed carry permits that it's virtually impossible to get one, unless you are politically connected. Although the rest of the state operates as it's supposed to, as shall-issue, Philadelphia is effectively may-issue.

It can't be that impossible--there are a lot of permit holders in Philly.

Source?

HA! :fumette:


Good point. I say we ship them all to the IRA. :D

Really? Perhaps you can tell me why in 100% of the states that have allowed concealed permits to be obtained by regular people (non-cops) crime has decreased dramatically?

No, but that's the kind of government they still have.

Another big fat HA! Stop making sense. You are making way to much sense for this place.

Pass me some ammo...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pb...702280473/1029

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=21902

Does that apply to individual cities as well?

States apply carry laws, cities don't. But if you want to talk about cities, let's start with the cities in America with the strictest gun laws.... Washington D.C., New York City, and Los Angeles. The rate of gun violence in the cities with the harshest gun laws is higher than anywhere else in America, and most certainly higher than any of the cities in America that have carry permits available for regular citizens.

nice comebacks, excellent sources everyone.




youre still wrong.

No, you're wrong Phil!

You're right, I probably would try to change them.:notworthy

My point is that I/we recognize that a person has the right to live because that's the way we were socialized. Not everybody thinks that way, which means there are not universal "rights", they differ by society. I think your example of the jungle people shows that. Ask them if the children have a right to live. Ask a Saudi if a thief has the right not to have his hand cut off for stealing. As soon as you understand that rights differ by society, you have to acknowledge that they are determined by society.

Not impossible, just difficult.

No, society determines what rights are taken away.

:brikwall:

That's what happens when you're wrong.

Only facts are wrong. Facts can be proven. Prove your point. :donut:

Many people here, including myself, have proven that natural rights exist until taken away by society.... all great scholars and even the founding fathers understood that.
But alas, you keep ordering fudge ripple, silly.

But it's not a discussion about the practical application of reality. "Human rights" is a philosophical question. If the jungle people are wrong, then they do not have the ability to determine the children's right to live. They have the ability to determine whether the child lives, but they are wrong when they do so. If they are wrong, there has to be a reason. The reason is that the child has an inherent right to be allowed to live, and no amount of societal tradition will make it okay for them to kill the child. It's not a legal or a practical question, it's a question of morality.

And morals are subjective.

If you really believe that, then you have no business trying to tell anyone that killing a criminal is wrong.

Why can't I want you to have the same subjective morals that I have? Join my team! Come on in - the water's fine!

BTW, I think there are times when killing a criminal is right. When you can save someone from immediate physical harm, it's ok. It's not ok to kill someone over "stuff", and it's preferrable to let our legal system work the way it is intended. If there's a problem with the system, fix it, don't become a vigilante. And Capital punishment is ok for the worst, and repeat offenders.

edit - bars and spotlights are better and safer than guns - kids don't accidently shoot each other with spotlights.

WOW, there is a non-open minded thought if I have ever seen one.

Someone please call the morality police. :rolleyes:

Wow, you're not even smart enough to realize that you do the same thing, pops.

Oh, that makes it right. You truly are the King of the Double Standard Gang. I never said that anyone should adopt my morals on any issue, only about how I felt about an issue.

My mistake. You don't want to convince people who don't have your morals, you just want to ridicule them. Phwew, for a minute I thought we had something in common, but no, your still just stupid and foolish.

Wow.... there goes that double standard again! Somebody get me a fly swatter.

Because that's an oxymoron. If morals are truly subjective, then you have to fully accept that mine are just as valid and correct as yours. We must both be right. If you're right and I'm wrong, then morals aren't completely subjective.

It's obvious that you have a sense of right and wrong. Morality is not subjective. Some things are always wrong, no matter how many people do them.

Our individual morals don't have to be mutually exclusive, do they? Your morals are valid, in that they are what they are. We are both right, in our own opinion. Surely, morals can change. You don't feel the same way morally now as you did as a teenager, do you? If they can change, why can they change do to the influence of someone else?

Gotta log off for a while.

If that's your point, than you have no point. We do have universal, immutable, and undeniable rights and they are the same for all people regardless of what personal beliefs they have or what kind of culture or "society" they live in or were raised in. Some "societies" violate rights more than others, but that does not mean people don't have the universal and natural rights that are being violated.

Society can't take away rights, it can just violate them.

I'm sure if you ask a child molester whether he's doing something immoral, he'll say he's not. Hitler thought what he was doing was saving the world. The fact remains these people are insane and are sociopaths.

Yes, individuals may have different sets of morality. Some find merely being born gay to be immoral. Some find sex before marriage to be immoral.

Personal morality and government morality are entirely different things. Your personal morality does not grant you any authority to legislate your religious beliefs onto others. Government morality is merely here to ensure that we don't physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.

Peter McWilliams does a fantastic job of describing this more eloquently than I'd ever be able to in his book "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do".

The whole book is available to read online (though I recommend buying a copy). Here is the chapter in question...

http://mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/104.htm

I'd be afraid an attacker would simply take the gun away and shoot me with it.

With regard to the slaughter of children, yes, I do. It is generally agreed that there are only a few natural rights, but they are the biggies. No one will ever convince me that I am wrong about them. If you believe that there are situations where it is not utterly wrong to slaughter innocent children for the purposes of tradition or societal convention, then yes, our moralities are definitely mutually exclusive.

Not an uncommon or unfounded fear. You are one of the people who fall into the category of being one who should never own a gun. Just call 911 and hope for the best.

If I had a gun in a situation like that I would probably end up closing my eyes and firing the gun wildly making a bullet ridden cut out in the wall of the attacker and not actually hitting him.

I will never own a gun because I would never ever be able to use it. I will never own a gun because I hate guns. I will never own a gun because I believe they are dangerous. I will never own a gun because I just can't picture myself with a weapon anywhere outside a video game.

But I will defend to the death your right to own one.

But I will defend to the death your right to own one.

Just not with a gun right? :)

That's the reason you have to have the commitment to practice to be justified in owning a gun.
Where I live there are no sidewalks, hence minimal pedestrians, so I don't practice as much as I should.

That doesn't answer my question, but that's OK. I know the answer is "no," in many cities that allow concealed carry, such as Denver, Minneapolis, Philadelphia...

Actually it does answer your question, and if it's your contention that gun violence has risen in Philadelphia, Denver, or Minneapolis since concealed carry permits were made, I'd demand proof and that you to provide a link between carry permits and the increased violent crimes. All the research I've done points to gangs fighting over drug territory and this would go away if we'd only end the drug war entirely.

I defy you or anyone else to provide a single example of a legal concealed permit holder that has ever committed a violent crime with a gun.

Nonsense, if they prevent you from exercising them they have taken them away. A right delayed is a right denied, and a right denied is a right lost.

Wrong. Our rights are our rights even when they are violated. Our rights can't be taken away, given away, bought, sold, or traded. They exist even when we are prevented from exercising them. A violated right is still a right. If someone cuts out your tongue, it doesn't remove your right to free speech.

Bah humbug.

What if those rights were changed or removed through a legal process by the government?

The government is a creation of the people. It derives its limited powers from the consent of the governed. Because individuals never have the right to "remove" the legal rights of others, they can't give this authority to government. Any "legal process" that attempts to remove or change our rights is an invalid one.

Government is here to protect our rights, not to define them, limit them, or especially "remove" them.

My contention?? Remember, you said:

So I asked:

Which you didn't answer, so I answered myself.

I don't know what that has to do with anything I said...but I'll take your challenge just for fun:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...8/ai_n16613984

What do I win?

1) Your article said the weapon was permitted, not that he had a concealed permit.

2) You neglected to mention that the old man who was robbed by the 19 year old thug, was a 70 year old man or that he'd taken a diamond ring worth nearly $18,000.

3) As far as I can tell the trial is ongoing and he has not been convicted of murder.

4) If you rob someone and you get killed by them, it's not murder no matter what anyone says... including a jury.

Nope, you've failed the challenge.

You asked if what I said applies to cities, and yes it does. Crime has dropped in every city that has allowed concealed carry laws including Philadelphia, Denver, and Minnesota.

I'm just barely smart enough not to compound the problem.

So what happens if the elected representatives decide to change your rights concerning free speech or other rights?