Will the Second Amendment survive?

[Radar]

He is saying because gravity is associated with measurable results it exists and pretends there are no measurable results with rights. Violate my rights and you can measure how deep the bullet goes into your skull. You can't see gravity, but you can feel it. You can't see my rights, but you'll damn sure feel it if you violate them or try to deny me of them.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Radar

He is saying because gravity is associated with measurable results it exists and pretends there are no measurable results with rights. Violate my rights and you can measure how deep the bullet goes into your skull. You can't see gravity, but you can feel it. You can't see my rights, but you'll damn sure feel it if you violate them or try to deny me of them.

Radar, please stop with this bullet argument, will you? Its a fallacious argument.

Your shooting victim will not be feeling your rights. They will be feeling a bullet. The reality and tangibility of the bullet is no evidence for the reality and tangibility of your rights.
I'm not saying your conclusion is false, just that this argument doesn't support it.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Radar, please stop with this bullet argument, will you? Its a fallacious argument.

Your shooting victim will not be feeling your rights. They will be feeling a bullet. The reality and tangibility of the bullet is no evidence for the reality and tangibility of your rights.
I'm not saying your conclusion is false, just that this argument doesn't support it.

It's not a fallacious argument. I have a right and will defend that right. If you claim I don't have a right and attempt to violate my rights, the result will be very real force used against you. The bullet they feel is a side effect of violating my rights.

[glatt]

Is "being respected" a right?

I ask because I sometimes read news stories about how one person will put a bullet through the skull of another person because they were not being respected. That must make it a right.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Radar

It's not a fallacious argument. I have a right and will defend that right. If you claim I don't have a right and attempt to violate my rights, the result will be very real force used against you. The bullet they feel is a side effect of violating my rights.

Maybe the following example will show why this argument if fallacious:

A person (not Radar, a strawman) falsely believes he has the right to shoot people for sport. The police come to "take away/violate" this right and the person shoots the police in the head with a very real bullet.
Does the reality of the bullet prove that the right in question exists? Surely not.

My point is, the reality of your rights are not proven by the reality of your ammunition.
Again, this doesn't mean that your conclusion is false. Just that this particular inference is invalid.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Maybe the following example will show why this argument if fallacious:

A person (not Radar, a strawman) falsely believes he has the right to shoot people for sport. The police come to "take away/violate" this right and the person shoots the police in the head with a very real bullet.
Does the reality of the bullet prove that the right in question exists? Surely not.

My point is, the reality of your rights are not proven by the reality of your ammunition.
Again, this doesn't mean that your conclusion is false. Just that this particular inference is invalid.

I've already said, your BELIEF in rights is disconnected and unrelated from what your actual rights are. Your rights are the same regardless of your opinion. They exist regardless of your denials. They are the same for all people. Our rights do not include violating the rights of others such as offensively killing someone rather than defensively.

In your example, your strawman is an insane person (much like those who deny the existence of immutable and unalienable rights) and he has violated the rights of another person. If he is killed using DEFENSIVE force by another cop, his rights have not been violated. Our rights never include violating the rights of others and a belief in such does not mean it's true.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Radar

I've already said, your BELIEF in rights is disconnected and unrelated from what your actual rights are. Your rights are the same regardless of your opinion. They exist regardless of your denials. They are the same for all people. Our rights do not include violating the rights of others such as offensively killing someone rather than defensively.

In your example, your strawman is an insane person (much like those who deny the existence of immutable and unalienable rights) and he has violated the rights of another person. If he is killed using DEFENSIVE force by another cop, his rights have not been violated. Our rights never include violating the rights of others and a belief in such does not mean it's true.

Yes to most of this ... but I was just talking about your bullet-in-the-head argument.
Do you agree that strawman's ability to shoot the police in defense of his supposed "right" fails to prove he has that right? It sounds like you do, I just want to be clear.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Radar

It's not a fallacious argument. I have a right and will defend that right. If you claim I don't have a right and attempt to violate my rights, the result will be very real force used against you. The bullet they feel is a side effect of violating my rights.

not if the person violating your rights decides to act on his/her right to put themselves out of misery and shoot you first.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Radar

False. All of them are supported by evidence and all are equally factual. You yourself say we have a right to life and so does Pierce. Ask every human being on earth if they have a right to live and they will say yes (assuming they can talk or communicate).

So your evidence for the universal, objective, physical existence of rights is group consensus?

It is axiomatic.

"Axiomatic" by definition includes a lack of proof. The right to life is a good candidate for an axiom. An assumption around which the rules of a good society can be built.

But an assumption nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Radar

He is saying because gravity is associated with measurable results it exists and pretends there are no measurable results with rights. Violate my rights and you can measure how deep the bullet goes into your skull. You can't see gravity, but you can feel it. You can't see my rights, but you'll damn sure feel it if you violate them or try to deny me of them.

Bullets go into skulls without regard for whether they are violating or enforcing rights. They do it with regard only to the subjective views of the wielder.

And, as you hold that the US government violates your rights, and you haven't shot any of them, I would posit that not only is that "measurable result" meaningless, it is nonexistent.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

So your evidence for the universal, objective, physical existence of rights is group consensus?"

No, consensus doesn't prove it. Our rights are self-evident. The consensus just proves that people recognize that our rights are self-evident.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Axiomatic" by definition includes a lack of proof. The right to life is a good candidate for an axiom. An assumption around which the rules of a good society can be built.

False. Axiomatic means it's obvious and always true. It is self-evident and factual regardless of your denials. The right to life isn't an "assumption", it's a cold, hard, indisputable fact.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

But an assumption nonetheless.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Bullets go into skulls without regard for whether they are violating or enforcing rights. They do it with regard only to the subjective views of the wielder.

Bullets go through skulls when they are fired from a gun. A gun is a tool used to defend oneself when our rights are being violated, whether those rights are our right to life, our right to remain unmolested, our right to defend our property or family, etc. Our rights are unquestionable and even YOU claim to have a right to life so you agree with me whether you spew more mindless garbage or not.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

And, as you hold that the US government violates your rights, and you haven't shot any of them, I would posit that not only is that "measurable result" meaningless, it is nonexistent.

How do you know I haven't shot any of them, or that I won't in the future? I've also never said that a bullet through the skull is the ONLY measurable result.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Radar

False. Axiomatic means it's obvious and always true.

Assumed to be true without proof.

It is self-evident and factual regardless of your denials. The right to life isn't an "assumption", it's a cold, hard, indisputable fact.

And yet, everything you attempt to use to support that assertion is entirely subjective.

Bullets go through skulls when they are fired from a gun. A gun is a tool used ...

... for whatever the user has in mind when it is used. In support of a right, real or imagined, or in violation of a right, real or imagined. Someone being shot is only evidence of what the shooter was thinking, not whether they were right or not.

How do you know I haven't shot any of them, or that I won't in the future? I've also never said that a bullet through the skull is the ONLY measurable result.

It's the only one you've offered so far.