Will the Second Amendment survive?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Lets be realistic, the majority are not allowed to infringe on a minority as long as the majority allows them too. If a gay man wants to get married to another man, why are we taking away his rights to do so?


This isn't necessarily directed at you Bruce...

Because remember, according the declaration of independence only white males are allowed to have rights. Non-whites and woman (probably homosexuals too) are not allowed to have them.

Why did we change that? Did we discover something else or did *gasp* society change its views on race and gender?

You've proven that you have not read the Declaration of Independence. As usual, you blather on and on about things you have no clue about. The Declaration of Independence does not say that "only white males are allowed to have rights". Feel free to back that up.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

It's been my experience, and observation that peoples fears (real and perceived), the real and perceived need for self preservation, selfishness, greed, social standing, emotional condition, religious belief, all play a much larger role then their knowledge of any existence of rights they were born with. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's been my experience that 99.9 % of the world does not know this thing about rights, and if they do, they really don't give a damn. If they do they sure do understand them differently then what we are discussing on this board.

We have such a luxury that we can laze around and discuss this. Believe me, I'm grateful for that.

I think it's ironic that in one breath people I know personally say that they are patriots, and American! Law abiding tax paying citizens! And in the next breath they say that if Congress repeals the 2nd amendment, and bans or restricts guns in the U.S. they will kill the guy that comes for theirs. Rather then run for office or get seriously involved in the process we have here for change. It sounds inconsistent to me.

What really burns my nads is this: when I have to give something up because someone else has abused something. A guy walks into a mall, probably mentally ill, drunk, high or all three. Kills some people with a fire arm. I have to give up mine, for that? I'm not mentally ill, I don't drink alcohol, and I don't use mind altering drugs. Nope, it is not right that I should have to give mine up for that.

It's not the only place I've experience this type of thinking. Very few things get my blood up more then that kind of injustice.

It's like saying that flies cause garbage, and getting rid of all the flies will get rid of all the garbage.

The right to bear arms is the most important of all our rights. This is why people say they will kill anyone who comes to take their guns. Without our right to keep and bear arms, we have no means of protecting any of our other rights.

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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

We have a right to overthrow the government by force when it violates our rights.

[regular.joe]

The most important, to you. The framers of the Declaration put life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness at the top. Otherwise I think it would have read: ..life, liberty, and the right to bear arms. The authors of the first ten amendments put the 1st amendment at the top. Don't get me wrong, it is very important. As important as any other of our freedoms and rights here in the U.S.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I wonder why that amendment comes before the 2nd?

I don't think the second amendment will be repealed any time soon. If it ever is, it will be according to the framework set up in our constitution to do so. If that is the only amendment repealed it will not constitute a long chain of abuses and usurpations, it would constitute one amendment being repealed.

To jump immediately to armed rebellion and overthrow of the U.S. Government over the repeal of the second amendment to the constitution does not sound like the actions of a prudent man. Especially if the repeal was accomplished through the process set forth within our system of government.

[Radar]

You mention life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The first among those is LIFE. Part of life is defending that life by any means necessary. In other words, the right to bear arms IS life.

If the 2nd amendment were repealed entirely, we'd still have the right to keep and bear any number of any type of weapon we choose without any government oversight.

The Constitution doesn't GIVE us any rights. It protects the rights we're born with. Even if the Constitution were no longer protecting that right, we'd still have it.

The federal government has already proven that it can't be trusted and that it works many times against the citizens and against our civil rights. repealing the 2nd amendment would be the last straw, and it would be prudent indeed to overthrow the government at such a time.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

No, I believe that society determines how important a single right is. For example, American society places the right to bear arms as much more important than British society does. Western society has the right to free speech as much more important than Islamic society does.

If society determines our rights then there can be no such thing as human rights violations then, right? If a particular society decides that they don't want any filthy jews mucking up their gene pool, then jews have no right to life there, correct?

Did you go thru public schools here in the US pierce?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Radar

Wrong. You've seen it many times, but you just deny it much like a child putting fingers in their ears while saying, "I can't hear you!".

I must of missed it then.

I honestly have not seen any proof of natural rights. Since I am obviously not as smarted as you, please explain it for me word for word.

By denying the existence of natural rights, you deny the existence of gravity. Both are equally part of natural law.

You could theoretically take away gravity if you take away what is causing it. You can not take away what is giving us our rights. I can imagine what a world would be like without gravity, we would all die, but I can imagine it. I cannot imagine a world without rights.

If we lived in a universe without gravity space would just seem empty and all energy would probably be spread out. Since I am not as smarted as you, can you explain to me what the universe would be like if we did not have rights.

Natural law encompasses gravity and natural rights. You claim that gravity exists because a particle exists. Natural rights exist because nature exists.

Ok, if you want it that way. If we take away that particle we can take away gravity. We can not take away nature so there is no way we can test your version of rights, which makes it philosophy, which means you cannot prove or disprove it.

No, you can't take away gravity. Society has no bearing on gravity. Every single person on earth could unanimously vote to get rid of gravity, and it would still exist. The same is true of our natural rights. If every single person on earth voted for our rights to go away, we'd still have them. Nothing you say or do will remove either gravity or our natural rights.

Where the fuck did you get this from? I never said society has any effect on gravity, I said that particle or whatever causes gravity does.

What you are saying is completely retarded. That would be like a society saying that we should get rid of morals. Rights and morals come with society, you cannot have a society without rights or morals.

Remember, rights are just justifications. You do something because you have the right the do it. You justify your shooting at people who take away your guns because you have the right to own a gun.

If I am the only human on Earth, what would be the point of rights because I wouldn't need to justify myself. The same goes with morals, morals are basically guidelines on how we interact with other people. If there is no one to interact with, there is no need for morals. So since there are no need for rights or morals until a society is formed, why would nature create rights or morals when the chance of a society actually forming is so small? Since you don't believe in a god, you probably do realize how small the chance is of an organism that feels the need for justification (rights) to evolve.

That is what I am trying to get at. The fact that rights came with society and will leave when society falls. There is no need for nature to create rights when society can.

Yes I'm sure about it and I don't need to provide a survey. By all means do your own survey. Ask everyone you meet if they have the right to live. Then ask if that right comes from their government or if they are born with that right.

You are a joke aren't you? I never said we don't have the right to live. I said that rights are a sociological construct.

I'll wait to answer this until you've completed your assigned reading.

I already have a book list in double digits that I need to get too. I'm not going any of your books ahead of the ones I want to read, I just don't care that much.

Nature (aka the laws of physics) grant us these rights at birth.

Prove it.

I know that murdering Jews isn't a right because if one human being has a right to life, we all do. My rights end where another person's begin. I don't have a right to kill another human unless it is in my own defense. My right to swing my fist ends where another person's nose begins.

Bearing arms does not infringe on the rights of others. Murder does. Bearing arms is part of our right to life. Murder is not one of our rights because our rights don't include infringing on the rights of others.

Is there like a ten commandments saying what our rights are? Where are you getting this information? All I hear is what you are saying rights are, not what nature is saying what rights are.

Originally Posted by jinx

If society determines our rights then there can be no such thing as human rights violations then, right?

No. I am saying society determines rights. So if you go against what society says right are, you have human right violations.

If a particular society decides that they don't want any filthy jews mucking up their gene pool, then jews have no right to life there, correct?

There we have a conflict of interests. If a society determines that jews have no right to life, the jews have no right to life from THEIR perspective. But our, and the Jewish society, says that jews have a right to life, so we will protect them from that society that doesn't think they have the right to life. If the Jews think they have a right to life, they can protect themselves.

I can't think of a good human example, so I will go to animal rights. We as a society says that dogs have a right to life and if you breed them in horrible living conditions and kill them at will you will go to jail. But, we as a society says that pigs do not have a right life and it is accepted that we breed them in horrible living conditions and kill them at will.

Since life and pursuit of happiness is something that no sane society will deny themselves, I will have the stay with property. In many different ways of living, rights to property do not make sense. For example, owning property in a hunter-gatherer society would destroy that whole system. In a far left socio-economic system, right to property is also taken away as well because property goes against that political philosophy. They are not wrong in their beliefs, it is just a difference in culture in dealing with rights.

Owning property is historically a rightist mindset and does not work in a leftist system. So to say that owning property is an unalienable right means that you are saying that a far leftist system is wrong, which is absurd.

Did you go thru public schools here in the US pierce?

Yes I did, why?

[LJ]

rights are.

society can only limit them, not grant them.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Lets be realistic, the majority are not allowed to infringe on a minority as long as the majority allows them too. If a gay man wants to get married to another man, why are we taking away his rights to do so?

Marriage is a privilege, not a right.

This isn't necessarily directed at you Bruce...

Because remember, according the declaration of independence only white males are allowed to have rights. Non-whites and woman (probably homosexuals too) are not allowed to have them.

Why did we change that? Did we discover something else or did *gasp* society change its views on race and gender?

That's not true.

[Radar]

Once again Pierce gives us a stunning display of his wanton stupidity and ignorance.

First, he claims we can get rid of gravity by getting rid of what causes it.... like all matter in the universe? I suppose you're right if we got rid of all matter in the universe, gravity would be gone, and so would all life so it wouldn't matter much.

I guess that means if you get rid of all matter in the universe, you'd get rid of nature too so we'd have no natural rights. What is the likelihood of this happening though? Oh, that's right...it's IMPOSSIBLE. That means it's IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of gravity or natural rights you douchebag.

That is SCIENCE!!

Society does not determine our rights. Our rights exist and have no connection to which society we happen to live in.

You say society determines our rights. What is society? A group of individuals. How large a group? If everyone on your block says you don't have a right to live, does that mean it's ok for them to kill you? How about everyone in your town? Would it be ok these people to tell you that you don't own your own body? Does it take everyone in your county? Your state? Your country? How many people exactly make up "society"?

Where does "society" get these powers to determine your rights? If society is a group of individuals, clearly power comes from the individuals who make up society. Where do these individuals get powers from? THAT'S RIGHT!!! FROM OUR INDIVIDUAL AND UNALIENABLE RIGHTS!!!

The "perspective" of a society is irrelevant. The opinions of the majority when it comes to rights is irrelevant. Our rights exist regardless of where we live, or what the opinions of others happen to be.

Human rights would not exist without private property ownership. If we don't own ourselves we can't complain if someone enslaves us. If we don't own our minds we have no right to think freely. If we don't own our thoughts, we have no right to express them.

Owning property genuinely is an unalienable right. This isn't a "rightist" mindset. It's just the correct one. The far leftist and far rightist systems genuinely are wrong and infringe on our natural rights and this is not absurd, it's just the truth.

Guess what? There is such a thing as wrong and right. And in this case, you are wrong. I'm guessing this is the case on most other topics as well. Murdering people because your "society" (whatever that is) doesn't think they have a right to exist is murder and it's wrong and it violates the RIGHTS of the people. This isn't up for debate.

For the record, we knew you went to a public school before you answered.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Marriage is a privilege, not a right.

I disagree. Marriage is a contract and we all have the right to enter into contracts. It doesn't matter if it's 2 people or 20 and if they are all of the same gender or even if they are related. As long as all parties are the age of majority and enter into the contract willingly there's no problem.

If the government recognizes one form of contract, it should recognize them all.

[deadbeater]

So, Radar, do you want pocket nukes for everyone?

[Radar]

As long as they can store them safely without endangering their neighbors with leaking radiation, I don't see a problem with it.

[piercehawkeye45]

Eh, you missed the point with my gravity argument.

I'll change it. If there was some way we could ignore gravity for one person, they would be able to float around like we see in videos of space shuttles. We can imagine what it would be like without the force of gravity. You cannot imagine what a person would be like without rights. If you can, describe a person without rights. If you cannot take away something, how do we know its true effects?

And you are being way too idealistic with your examples. I have stayed away with right of life because I do not know a single person who doesn't think they have a right to life. If there is a dispute, it is usually one group forcing what they think rights are on another group, which I ideally disagree with. I don't believe in unalienable rights but since right to life is something that everyone can agree on when it comes to themselves, we can assume it is. Same goes for pursuit of happiness.

The reason why I find this discussion funny is because our views are not that different. We only vary on a few small differences while the rest remain the same. I say that everyone agrees that they have a right to life so it is a right that everyone enjoys while you say it is fundamental and it cannot be taken away. The real only difference is where we get our rights from and I say in hypothetical situation where a group of people say they have no right to life, it wouldn't be immoral to kill them. Just that a group of people that say they have no right to life would be wiped out immediately from the gene pool.

Besides property in a few situation (that is only if no individual has property) I do not argue the rights to life, property, and pursuit of happiness because everyone can agree that they should have those rights. I do not look for rights that we automatically have, I look for rights that everyone can agree we have. Of course I know that some are idealistic (POH for example), because there are a lot of times when one has to take away someone else's pursuit of happiness to promote one's own but that is a different issue.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

If you can prove that we are born with UNLIMITED rights to keep and bear any number of any type of weapon we want with any kind of ammo we want without any government permission, registration, or oversight I will agree with you.

I wouldn't take this kind of bait; Robert J. Ringer's writing shows us that rights are not unlimited, but in a balance. A right restricted is a right preserved, to paraphrase him; the right to shout "Fire!" aloud is restricted in, say, a theater; the liberty to swing a fist ends at the tip of the other fellow's nose, etc. So, no, not wholly unlimited -- the art of the thing is to achieve the greatest right at the least practicable restriction. Pierce seems altogether excessive about his restrictions, which is altogether typical of the non-firearm-oriented persons of great ignorance.

They think they are going to thrash libertarians and gun people on points such as this. Unfortunately, for those with greater understanding of the matter, these points are as invalid as they are stubbornly held by the persons of ignorance. There is no worth in overdoing ammunition restrictions. There is very little republican, that is republic-preserving, worth in doing ammunition restrictions of any sort, really.

You are trying to make philosophy fact Radar, it just doesn't work.

This is not as a rule bad; you're just pretending it is because this philosophy doesn't happen to be agreeable to you. Making a philosophy fact is exactly the thing that started our nation, I'll have you keep permanently in mind.

If a society agrees that we have the right to an UNLIMITED right to keep and bear arms then fine, let them have it but if a society doesn't agree that we have an UNLIMITED right to keep and bear arms then gun laws should be in place.

Id est, the current state of affairs -- which is always subject to suitable modification if some details are unsatisfactory. Amend and repeal.

You cannot prove that the universe gives us rights, so don't force it down other people's throats. If you really want the right to bear arms, move to a place that will allow you too or protest to change/preserve your wanted right. If you don't want to move or you cannot change/preserve your wanted right, than you have to accept the rulings in that area. Its that simple.

This is not subject to proof or to disproof, Pierce. That you would complain about someone telling you of the freer way and insist on taking the less free way tells us something about your thinking: that it is not free, nor remarkably adult.

At its best, the Libertarian Party is the Party of Adult Thinking. This sometimes leaves the libertarian thinker just a bit uncomfortable. But that's the price of freedom -- and if you can have freedom at that price, that's a damned good bargain.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Radar

As long as they can store them safely without endangering their neighbors with leaking radiation, I don't see a problem with it.

I do; as I've said on other threads here, it is difficult to use a nuclear weapon as designed and intended in a moral way. Collateral damage (counting radioactive pollution under that heading) and collateral deaths are too large a problem, and there doesn't seem a solution to it on the Earth's face.

In deep space, there the problem is much reduced if not completely solved, but evoking science fiction isn't a very present help in this present trouble.

Killing tools of a less comprehensive nature are easier to use morally: though some would have us believe that only killing those who should be killed is some kind of moral failure in itself. This is an idea I don't buy.