Will the Second Amendment survive?

[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.

[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.

[LJ]

rights are.

society can only limit them, not grant them.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[deadbeater]

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.

Then prey tell me why Iran does not have the right to have a nuke?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

Then prey tell me why Iran does not have the right to have a nuke?

They do have that right. All sovereign nations have the right of self-determination and can choose for themselves which weapons they will or won't develop.

The problem is that those nations who got the technology first, like to bully around other nations and say they can't or shouldn't have them.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Radar

They do have that right. All sovereign nations have the right of self-determination and can choose for themselves which weapons they will or won't develop.

The problem is that those nations who got the technology first, like to bully around other nations and say they can't or shouldn't have them.

Like the United States?

[lookout123]

to be fair radar has always stayed consistent on that point. he has said in the past that everyone has the right to have every weapon. they simply don't have the right to use those weapons for anything but their own defense. IIRC

[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.

[piercehawkeye45]

UG, you don't think that you might be a bit biased as well? It is natural for you and Radar to side with unalienable rights because your views do not allow you to have any leeway with those issue so making it absolute works best for your interests. While I and others accept some leeway in some scenarios so I will naturally side with the idea that rights were created by society. Now where we can see how our argument started, lets do this in a more laid out and break this down step by step. Remember, this is just philosophy so there are no right or wrong answers.

By this I am not saying you do not have an answer, just I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Who gives us our rights?
You - ???
Me - We give ourselves rights by justifying our actions but society uses social norms and laws to influence which ones are more important.

What would humans be like without rights?
You - ???
Me - Humans cannot get rid of rights as long as we justify our actions. If we did that, we would still be able to perform the same actions like how any animal can defend itself (right to life) dig a den (right to property...kind of) or hump on my leg (pursuit of happiness) but we would just not justify our actions like how animals don't need to justify their actions.

If rights are just justifications, and humans are the only species that need to justify our actions, we can say that rights would not be discovered/created without the evolution of humans. Explain if you disagree with that logic.

When did the first human group discover/create rights?
You - ???
Me - When justification was needed to explain one's actions.

Did rights exist before humans evolved?
You - ???
Me - No, humans created rights so there was no concept of rights before humans evolved.

If you answer those questions I can get a better idea of what you believe and then we can further this debate.

Making a philosophy fact is exactly the thing that started our nation, I'll have you keep permanently in mind.

We didn't make philosophy fact anymore than Iran made their Islamic philosophy fact or the Soviets made their philosophy fact. We all just made our philosophy into reality. Some will do better than others but that does not make a particular philosophy fact because of the enormous variation of initial conditions that can make or break a theory. Individual preference has a play in that as well because many Islamic conservatives would say their lifestyle is fact just as quickly as you have.

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.

Oh c'mon. Can you at least try not to be so extremely biased?