Will the Second Amendment survive?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Radar

My perspective is never that people allow the government to violate our rights. I say the people are coerced and threatened into allowing the government to violate our rights because they fear if they stand up for their rights, they will be the nail that sticks out the most and they'll get hammered.

So if a group democratically votes that they do not have the right to own an assault rifle or they vote a representive in who believes the people he or she is representing do not have the right to own an assault rifle that the people are scared of getting thrown in jail? That doesn't make sense. Just because you believe that we should never allow the government to violate/take away our rights doesn't mean that everyone does.

People aren't ALLOWING the government to violate their rights, they are merely scared they'll be outgunned. Most people pay income taxes not because they feel a sense of duty or because they think they are the right thing to do. They pay taxes out of force and coercion. If they knew men with guns would not show up when they refused to have their income stolen from them, they would cease to pay them and exercise their right to keep what they earn.

Then why are non-politicians trying to get guns outlawed? And I know people that know the income tax is technically illegal but wouldn't mind it if it went to places besides the military.

If someone is raped, it doesn't mean they ALLOWED themselves to be used for sex.

Not everyone thinks that gun laws are comparable to rape.

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

No it doesn't, it just proves that everyone agrees that we have that single right. I can just as easily say I don't have the right to life and your conclusion is proven false right there. You are using invalid logic.

It is like saying that just because every human thinks it is unethical to practice cannibalism makes that a universal ethic. But, in the past (actually present too but I am leaving that out for the sake of the example) groups thought it was not only ethical but sacred to practice cannibalism so it obviously isn't a universal ethic.

Also, since Pierce openly admits he doesn't know the difference between a right and a privilege I'll ask him to read the links I've provided again.

Finals week is coming up (I come on here to get my mind of studying right now) and I am not going to read through a bunch of links right now for something that you can answer in two seconds. Good way at avoiding my questions though so I will ask them again.



Questions for Radar:
1) What would humans be like without rights?
2) Who determines the difference between a right and a privilege?
3) When did the first human group discover/create rights?
4) Did rights exist before humans evolved the ability to justify their actions?

[Aliantha]

Is there anyone reading this who'd like to speak up on UG's behalf?

While I rarely agree with UG on anything, I much prefer discourse with him than some of the other arrogant arseholes around this place.

At least he doesn't take himself seriously enough to be truly deluded unlike some others.

I also have to say that UG does have a good sense of humour on a number of levels and while he is quite unbelieveable in some of his assertions, on the whole he's just another dwellar with a certain way of doing things.

Like all the others that rub the wrong way, there's no need to respond if you don't want to.

[Radar]

I disagree. You can't ignore rights. You can violate them, but not ignore them. As a person with rights, you can choose not to exercise them, but they still exist.

This isn't a semantics argument, it's a HUGE point.

The fact that you can kill someone doesn't mean they didn't have a right to life. The fact that you can steal their property does not mean they don't have a right to that property. The fact that you can use a rocket to escape the gravity of the earth does not mean the earth has no gravity.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Radar

I disagree. You can't ignore rights. You can violate them, but not ignore them.

Why not? What happens if you do?

The fact that you can kill someone doesn't mean they didn't have a right to life.

Or that they do.

The fact that you can steal their property does not mean they don't have a right to that property.

Or that they do.

The fact that you can use a rocket to escape the gravity of the earth does not mean the earth has no gravity.

But the fact that you have to use a rocket to escape Earth's gravity does mean that the Earth has gravity.

The first two are unfounded assertions. The third has been supported by evidence.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The first two are unfounded assertions. The third has been supported by evidence.

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).

It is unanimous. It is factual. It is right. It is axiomatic. It is undeniable. And nothing you say or do will change it.

[Aliantha]

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).

It is unanimous. It is factual. It is right. It is axiomatic. It is undeniable. And nothing you say or do will change it.

Once apon a time, everyone believed the world was flat, but then along came someone that proved it wasn't.

So was it a fact that it was flat before it magically become not a fact anymore?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Once apon a time, everyone believed the world was flat, but then along came someone that proved it wasn't.

So was it a fact that it was flat before it magically become not a fact anymore?

It was never a fact that the world was flat. The world was always spherical despite the beliefs of those who thought otherwise. The truth is the truth regardless of the ability of anyone's ability to recognize it. The truth is that we have human rights. They come from nature and are real and tangible and they can't be bought, sold, taken, given, or voted away. This fact will not change regardless of how many claim the world to be flat (or claim our rights are a social construct) regardless of how sure they are.

[Radar]

Also, since Pierce openly admits he doesn't know the difference between a right and a privilege I'll ask him to read the links I've provided again.

Rights and privileges are not labels. An apple and a Buick are very different things. Calling them something else doesn't alter this fact. A rights and a privilege are the exact opposite. People do not decide what your rights are, but they may extend a privilege.

Your rights can not be numbered because all people have the right to do ANYTHING as long as they do not infringe on the person, property, or rights of a non-consenting other. Infringement means preventing another person's equal use of their rights, property, person, etc.

[Shawnee123]

It's the truth
It's actual
Everything is satisfactual.

(Sidenote: just because every human being on earth believes something doesn't make it so. There was a time when every human on earth believed the earth was flat. Just sayin')

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

It's the truth
It's actual
Everything is satisfactual.

(Sidenote: just because every human being on earth believes something doesn't make it so. There was a time when every human on earth believed the earth was flat. Just sayin')

Ooops, should have read this before I posted my last one.

[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.