Sheriff calls for guns on campus

[xoxoxoBruce]

Our? Who's our?
You are trying to convince me that the cave men, having no laws, had no rights. Nonsense, they all had the right to do what they wanted. They were born with that right, as is everyone before and since.

All laws, all rules, all customs, are an infringement on that right to do what you wish, in an attempt to create cohesive society.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Our? Who's our?
All laws, all rules, all customs, are an infringement on that right to do what you wish, in an attempt to create cohesive society.

Your definition of "rights" is sort of useless. If all laws are an infringement, we get back to subjective judgement calls as to whether the benefit outweighs the violation. I suspect that piercehawkeye45 considers a "right" to be an aspect of your [universal right to do as you wish] that no benefit outweighs.

This type of right, which is the more common understanding of the word, is invented by humans, and based on culture.

[xoxoxoBruce]

"That no benefit outweighs"?... that depends on who's calling the shots, which is usually the ones making and enforcing the laws. You can bet it will be what's most beneficial to them.

That's why I claim they don't determine my rights with their laws, only infringe on them. I will never accept my rights are "everything else", after they have imposed their will.

"which is the more common understanding of the word", maybe in your world, but not where I come from, buddy.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

"That no benefit outweighs"?... that depends on who's calling the shots, which is usually the ones making and enforcing the laws.

How you can exercise your rights always depends on who's calling the shots. But what you consider to be a right depends on you, and is largely based on culture. Your definition is nice, but ultimately useless. If both "stop at the red light" and "don't murder" are infringements of your rights, then "rights" are too abstract to be meaningful. You can't make a case against a law as infringing, because that's a given.

On the other hand, if you view a right as "something that no law ought to prevent me from doing", you can actually use the word in a useful way, as in "You should not ban handguns because of the right to keep and bear arms."

[xoxoxoBruce]

My rights aren't based on culture, everyone is born with them.
How in hell do infringements make my rights "too abstract to be meaningful"? That's nonsense, it makes my rights more meaningful, and more important.
I certainly can make a case against a law as infringing... "because that's a given", strengthens my case because I don't have to prove it is an infringement.

It sounds like your saying, save the argument of infringing on my rights, for important fights. Horseshit, every law, every rule, every custom, should be questioned on a regular basis. Anything outmoded, or redundant should be eliminated. There should be no laws without a current legitimate purpose and any that are not clearly so, should be questioned.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

In a further development, America's 1st Freedom magazine notes that Texas Governor Rick Perry and some legislators are considering repealing a state law prohibiting possession of firearms on college campuses.

Article Here