Will the Second Amendment survive?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Not and remain a decent moral being, no. Not for all the -- youthful -- piercehawkeye sophistry under Heaven. You like to clatter on, and voluminously, but in the end it's all just sophistry, without much wisdom in it.

Can you not abandon a nigh-fascist evil and join the people of freedom?

[classicman]

I thought he laid it out pretty nice for ya UG - why not answer his questions?

[Radar]

Why should he answer pierce's questions when pierce never answered mine?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Radar

Why should he answer pierce's questions when pierce never answered mine?

This one?

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"?

I said I wasn't going to get into that because I have not met a single person who doesn't think that he or she does not have the right to life so trying to take away or debate the right to life becomes pointless but I will try to explain further.

First, I have changed my stance slightly from just society to a more justification standpoint. If someone attacks me with a knife I will defend myself because I think I have a right to life, no matter if society thinks I do or not. Like morals, how strong someone believes in which rights are worth defending are individual decisions, but society will play a role in molding and enforcing those rights.

Since right to life is basically universally accepted I will not get into that right now but if we look at the difference between gun culture in country of America, where belief in the right to bear arms is extremely high, and Britain, where belief in the right to bear arms is lower. Now, it is stupid to say that genetics has anything to do with views because most "rednecks" (I am not using that in a bad way, just a label for whites that live in the country in lack of better word) are Brits, so we can narrow that down to sociological effects.

In "redneck America", the feeling that we have a strong right to bear arms is enforced socially in many ways (preaching, seeing guns in households, learning to shoot guns early, learning importance of guns and gun safety, media) while that enforcement is not present in Britain so it is only natural for "redneck America" to defend the right to bear arms more than in Britain. These are obviously generalizations, it is extremely possible that someone raised in "redneck America" doesn't believe so highly about zero gun laws while there is an equally high possibility that someone in Britain thinks about gun laws in the same way as you Radar.

That is how I believe rights work. They seem to work in the same way I have seen morals work.

Now I will try to dwell into right to life. Now, as I said earlier, I haven't met a single person that doesn't think they have a right to life so not only will every society have a strong social enforcement of the right to life, the individuals that do stray from that will not last long and will be wiped from the gene pool. So assuming that everyone believes they have a right to life, our views come together where there is ideally no justification to taking a life. It would be seen the same, but just not to that extreme, as a group that forces another group to have extreme gun laws against their will or a group that forces another group to have zero gun laws when they do want some.

If a group does not want the right to own assault rifles, then enforce gun laws, its their choice. If a group does want the right to own assault rifles, then don't have gun laws, its their choice. If you live in a society where the sociological voice goes against your personal views, you can either deal with it, fight to get it changed, or move.

To answer your questions more throughly, when I say society, I am making a generalization about what that society says. It obviously gets extremely complicated when we deal with societies that are split on issues and getting into subgroups ("redneck" and Urban America are different societies but both part of American society).

Hopefully that explains my view that guns laws should be democratically voted on and enforced by state, country, or city governments because "redneck" and urban America have such different views on gun laws and rights a universal law would screw over one of the two groups. It makes things more complicated but it is the only solution that does not totally violate a group's wishes.

[Undertoad]

From where I'm sitting, PH laid it out extremely well, very well done, and UG evaded it with utter shameful weakness and an ad hominem jab.

One signal of how strong your philosophy is, is how thoroughly you are willing to sincerely test it. Not just amongst others, but in your own mind as well. An avoidance of tests is telling.

What we repeatedly see from you, UG, is knee-jerk avoidance with flowery language. UG, you're not just hiding things from us, you're hiding things from yourself. All these high-falutin' vocab words are just nuanced obfustication. You believe if you *say* it smart, you don't have to actually *be* smart. And every time you're called on it, you dig an ostrich hole and hide in plain sight.

A more confident person would be embarrassed by this behavior. A smart but self-centered person says, "I know I am right. Bring on all challenges so I can laugh at them." A wiser person says, "I think I am right, but I am not the arbiter of truth. I have not learned all I can learn. So I will honestly check myself at every opportunity. Bring all challenges so I can consider them."

A smart person of weak character says, "These people are not smart enough for me to learn from." A wise person of strong character says, "People are of differing intelligence, but all from different points of view. All people have found their own truths, from perspectives I cannot ever share; therefore, there are no people I cannot learn from."

[Aliantha]

I'd like to know why public school education makes a difference to this debate.

Edit: for the record, I think it's arrogant to ask a question like that and not explain why, especially when pierce asked for an explanation after answering the question.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I'd like to know why public school education makes a difference to this debate.

Edit: for the record, I think it's arrogant to ask a question like that and not explain why, especially when pierce asked for an explanation after answering the question.

Oh I'm sorry Ali, I didn't realize you had a time limit in place for conversations you're not involved with. Fuck off eh?

Pierce the reason why I asked is because I have intimate knowledge of the required curricula for elementary school - which includes the US history that should make the concept of natural rights abundantly clear.
I'm not trying to give you shit for being anti-gun, I'm just amazed and saddened that you don't seem to be able to grasp even the idea of inalienable rights. If anyone should be able to, it is a graduate of US public schools, whether they're a redneck or not.

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.

No one gives us our rights. If they could be given (by society, by the king, by whomever) - they would be privileges.

[Ibby]

Amen, UT.

[Aliantha]

That's an excellent question deadbeater. I can't wait for the answer. lol

[Aliantha]

So he would have been happy enough if Iraq had had nukes and used them on the US when their country was illegally invaded?

what a nice mess we'd be in now if that were the case.

[Radar]

If Iraq had nukes, America would not have invaded. Bullies like Bush are only interested in easy victims.

It seems these days the only way to stop America from invading your country is to get nukes.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Radar

It seems these days the only way to stop America from invading your country is to get nukes.

Yes, any country with a nuclear weapon will not get attacked by a conventional enemy. Iran notes this, that is why I even have doubts of them giving up their nuclear weapon program in 2003. The part about them bombing Israel or giving their future nuclear weapons away is a load of crap, it doesn't make sense, but I do believe nuclear weapons is on Iran's agenda.

Originally Posted by Jynx

I'm not trying to give you shit for being anti-gun, I'm just amazed and saddened that you don't seem to be able to grasp even the idea of inalienable rights. If anyone should be able to, it is a graduate of US public schools, whether they're a redneck or not.

We did learn about unalienable rights in public school, I just disagree with that idea.

No one gives us our rights. If they could be given (by society, by the king, by whomever) - they would be privileges.

If someone attacks me with a knife, I will defend myself whether it is a right or a privilege.

Either way, besides a minor few things all we are disagreeing on is semantics. When you say discovered I say created, when you say give up I say don't have the right. We get the same result either way, you just start at the top (unlimited rights) and come down (what we have now) while I start from the bottom (no right) and come up (what we have now).

I just believe that rights is an abstract concept, like morals, ethics, and freedom, because only humans can understand or use them and there is no way to test if they are actually there or not.

Originally Posted by Radar

He thinks our rights change based on what the opinion of our rights happen to be. In other words, if Hitler thinks you don't have a right to live and the "society" of Germany agrees, it means you don't have a right to live. He wants to shy away from the right to life. But the right to life is no different than the right to keep and bear arms, the right to private property ownership, or any of our other rights.

You did not read my post correctly Radar. I said since no one believes they don't have a right to life, no one can ethically decide if they have a right to life or not. Society can only mold people's beliefs of rights and enforce them. If Hitler believes the Jews don't have the right to life, that means he feels he doesn't need to justify killing them. If German society believes that a Jew has no right to life, that means a German growing up in that society will most likely believe that Jews don't have a right to life and that there would be no penalty for killing a Jew. A Jews can protect him or herself with the justification that he or she has the right to life. Rights, like ethics, are highly based on perspective.

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of living with a few unalienable rights because it makes things much simpler and sets very ethical guidelines 99% of the time, I just don't believe they are real. "Do unto others as you would want them to do upon you" is a horrible idea in some situations, but it is a good generalization to live by 99% of the time. Like unalienable rights, I don't believe that quote is the correct way, but I will tell other people it is because it is simple to understand, easily avoids conflict, and would be the most moral decision, in my opinion at least, 99% of the time.

Another reason I don't believe in the idea of unalienable is because there is nothing to enforce those rights besides humans. If everyone in the world besides me believed that I don't have a right to live and all 6 billion people try to kill me, there is nothing the universe or nature is going to do to stop them. The only person that can stop them is myself. If nature says that everyone has a right to life, then it would make sense that nature would enforce it, but it doesn't, hence another reason why I believe rights are man-made. Humans are the only ones that can enforce rights, so it makes sense that humans created rights. Nature enforces the laws of gravity, hence why it makes sense that nature "created" gravity.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Yes, any country with a nuclear weapon will not get attacked by a conventional enemy. Iran notes this, that is why I even have doubts of them giving up their nuclear weapon program in 2003. The part about them bombing Israel or giving their future nuclear weapons away is a load of crap, it doesn't make sense, but I do believe nuclear weapons is on Iran's agenda.


We did learn about unalienable rights in public school, I just disagree with that idea.


If someone attacks me with a knife, I will defend myself whether it is a right or a privilege.

Either way, besides a minor few things all we are disagreeing on is semantics. When you say discovered I say created, when you say give up I say don't have the right. We get the same result either way, you just start at the top (unlimited rights) and come down (what we have now) while I start from the bottom (no right) and come up (what we have now).

I just believe that rights is an abstract concept, like morals, ethics, and freedom, because only humans can understand or use them and there is no way to test if they are actually there or not.


You did not read my post correctly Radar. I said since no one believes they don't have a right to life, no one can ethically decide if they have a right to life or not. Society can only mold people's beliefs of rights and enforce them. If Hitler believes the Jews don't have the right to life, that means he feels he doesn't need to justify killing them. If German society believes that a Jew has no right to life, that means a German growing up in that society will most likely believe that Jews don't have a right to life and that there would be no penalty for killing a Jew. A Jews can protect him or herself with the justification that he or she has the right to life. Rights, like ethics, are highly based on perspective.

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of living with a few unalienable rights because it makes things much simpler and sets very ethical guidelines 99% of the time, I just don't believe they are real. "Do unto others as you would want them to do upon you" is a horrible idea in some situations, but it is a good generalization to live by 99% of the time. Like unalienable rights, I don't believe that quote is the correct way, but I will tell other people it is because it is simple to understand, easily avoids conflict, and would be the most moral decision, in my opinion at least, 99% of the time.

Another reason I don't believe in the idea of unalienable is because there is nothing to enforce those rights besides humans. If everyone in the world besides me believed that I don't have a right to live and all 6 billion people try to kill me, there is nothing the universe or nature is going to do to stop them. The only person that can stop them is myself. If nature says that everyone has a right to life, then it would make sense that nature would enforce it, but it doesn't, hence another reason why I believe rights are man-made. Humans are the only ones that can enforce rights, so it makes sense that humans created rights. Nature enforces the laws of gravity, hence why it makes sense that nature "created" gravity.

Nature grants us life, and all of our natural rights. Nature does not need to "enforce" rights. We protect our own rights. Another part of nature is that we die. Our lives are fragile and we have a right to defend them. Nature doesn't "enforce" the law of gravity. Gravity just is and that's part of nature. Our rights just exist. Neither our rights, nor gravity can be bought, sold, taken, or given away. They can be overcome, but that doesn't mean they cease to exist.

I can overcome the gravitational pull of the earth by getting into a rocket. The gravity still exists. I can overcome someone's right to life by killing them. It doesn't mean they didn't have that right. I can overcome their right to private property ownership by stealing from them, it doesn't mean I have a right to do so or that they don't still have the right to own property.

Our rights have nothing to do with perception. I don't have a right to life merely because I perceive myself to have it. I'd have a right to life even if I didn't know what rights were and I were dim enough to think they were created by society.

Here's a question.

Society is made up of individuals. If individuals do not have rights, where does society gain its powers from? By what authority does "society" act? How can "society" grant rights to people when the people who make up society have no rights?

In other words, how can you give something to someone that you don't have?

Also, anything that can be GIVEN can also be taken away. These are privileges. If society could give rights to people, they would cease to be rights. They would be privileges. If rights came from society, there would be no such things as rights.

If you acknowledge that we have a right to life, (and you have done so) my entire argument is proven because rights can't be bestowed upon us, they can only exist on their own.

A right inherent and is something you do not require permission to do. A privilege is permission to do something and this permission can be revoked at any time.


For instance, if I own a piece of land. I can walk across my land all day back and forth, and there isn't a single person on the face of the earth who can tell me to stop. I don't require the permission of anyone to walk across my land.

If I want to take a shortcut across YOUR land, I'd require your permission. You could grant me permission and extend the privilege of walking across your land. But in the future, if you get tired of me walking across your land, you can revoke that permission. You can never revoke my right to walk across my own land.

You said that you would defend your own life regardless of whether it were a right or a privilege. This statement alone proves it to be a right. It's something you do not require permission to do. It's something you were born with the right to do. This right can not be taken away from you. You can't sell your right to defend yourself to me because I already have a right to defend myself. I was born with it. You can't vote away your right to defend yourself. Nothing you say or do will separate your right to defend your life from your life itself. You can end your life, but then you would have no life to defend so your right to defend it is irrelevant.

As long as you have a life, you have a right to defend it. As long as you have a life, you own yourself and no other person or group of people has any claim to your life or your person. As long as you own yourself, your thoughts, speech, and labor are your own and so are the fruits of that labor. Nobody else on earth has any legitimate claim to the fruits of your labor unless you have sold those fruits or otherwise traded them.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Radar

Nature doesn't "enforce" the law of gravity.

Yes it does. Anything that gravity prohibits can't be done. Rights prohibit nothing in the absence of human enforcement.

Our rights have nothing to do with perception.

If you attempt to do something without taking gravity into account, the punishment is failure.
If you attempt to do something without taking rights into account, the punishment is decided by yourself, in the form of guilt, and/or by the reactions of others, all of which are based entirely on perception.

Society is made up of individuals. If individuals do not have rights, where does society gain its powers from? By what authority does "society" act? How can "society" grant rights to people when the people who make up society have no rights?

This post is made up of sentences, each of which is made up of words, each of which is made up of letters. A letter doesn't have all of the properties of the post.

Again, I am not saying that we don't have rights, or that it's a bad idea to behave as if we do. What I am saying is that your assertions that rights have physical, objective reality outside the mind are unsupported. I suspect it is because they are unsupportable; not because they are false, but because the question of their validity is untestable.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Yes it does. Anything that gravity prohibits can't be done. Rights prohibit nothing in the absence of human enforcement.

To enforce something is to use force. Since gravity IS a force, nature does not need to enforce it. Not being able to do something because gravity exists, is not enforcing gravity.