It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
And no, electric, I'm not basing ownership on the fact something can be stolen. I'm basing it on the legal constructs that society has come up with to determine ownership. You know... deeds... titles... receipts. Those things people fight over all the time to determine who owns what.
And if you read my post again, I never said "Life"... I said "Body". I certainly can come up with a contract to give my "life" away. And based upon the extent of the contract, society may or may not honor such a contract. But it's still up to society.
But back to my original point of "body" being naturally yours. If someone were to cut off my hand and claim it is there's, I could show society my bloody stump and.. get this... DNA TESTS to show that it is actually mine. So I was wrong in my first post. Nature DOES give a "receipt" in the form of DNA, at least as it concerns our own bodies.
Now do you have something equivalent to DNA tests to show ownership of a gun is a natural right or is god granted?
natural rights
natural rights, political theory that maintains that an individual enters into society with certain basic rights and that no government can deny these rights. The modern idea of natural rights grew out of the ancient and medieval doctrines of natural law, i.e., the belief that people, as creatures of nature and God, should live their lives and organize their society on the basis of rules and precepts laid down by nature or God. With the growth of the idea of individualism, especially in the 17th cent., natural law doctrines were modified to stress the fact that individuals, because they are natural beings, have rights that cannot be violated by anyone or by any society. Perhaps the most famous formulation of this doctrine is found in the writings of John Locke. Locke assumed that humans were by nature rational and good, and that they carried into political society the same rights they had enjoyed in earlier stages of society, foremost among them being freedom of worship, the right to a voice in their own government, and the right of property. Jean Jacques Rousseau attempted to reconcile the natural rights of the individual with the need for social unity and cooperation through the idea of the social contract. The most important elaboration of the idea of natural rights came in the North American colonies, however, where the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Paine made of the natural rights theory a powerful justification for revolution. The classic expressions of natural rights are the English Bill of Rights (1689), the American Declaration of Independence (1776), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States (known as the Bill of Rights, 1791), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations (1948).
See B. F. Wright, American Interpretation of Natural Law (1931, repr. 1962); L. Strauss, Natural Right and History (1957); O. J. Stone, Human Law and Human Justice (1965); R. Tuck, Natural Rights Theories (1982); L. L. Weinreb, Natural Law and Justice (1987); R. Hittinger, A Critique of the New Natural Law Theory (1988).
Read more: natural rights — Infoplease.com www.infoplease.com...
You can't protect yourself against another firearm with a stick...Sorry but you are not going to win this argument...
Do you not understand that the fouding fathers clearly say the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are among the OTHER natural rights people are born with?...
The founding fathers knew that the government, and some people would try to disarm the people yet again, because it was done to them to begin with...
Then i guess according to YOUR point of view society has a right to dictate what people should think and do...
You want to be a puppet of society or the government? Be my guess... But neither you, society or government have a right to ANYTHING you claim they have a right to...
I am no criminal, and believing and wanting to defend the U.S. Constitution, and our NATURAL/God given rights is not a reason for claiming people are criminals... Even when some of you want to do exactly this...
Originally posted by NIcon
That' very noble of you. But in all this I don't see anywhere your case that "owning" a gun is a natural right. In your next post you say it's the right to defend yourself, and I agree everyone has a NATURAL right to defend themselves, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a "natural right" to "own" a gun.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson
"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
Thomas Jefferson Letter to George Washington, 1796
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson (attributed without source)
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
Thomas Jefferson's advice to his 15 year-old nephew Peter Carr 1785
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)
"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 [August 17, 1789]])
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)
"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)
"Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system."
en.wikipedia.org...
"John Locke emphasized "life, liberty and property" as primary. However, despite Locke's influential defense of the right of revolution, Thomas Jefferson substituted "pursuit of happiness" in place of "property" in the United States Declaration of Independence."
"Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of "property" as a goal of government. It is noted that Franklin found property to be a "creature of society" and thus, he believed that it should be taxed as a way to finance civil society."
en.wikipedia.org...
I think it a tad bit silly to state that one has the natural right to self defense, but not a right to the tools that make that self defense possible. That is like saying that someone has the right to free speech, but not a right to own a typewriter since one can communicate by voice.
Originally posted by NIcon
Here's an interesting read:
chronicle.augusta.com...
DEFENDS HIMSELF WITHOUT EVEN A STICK! There are billions of possible situations, so you can't say it's impossible. So it looks like I "won' that argument....
Gun crime soars by 35%
Created: 9 January 2003 | Updated: 10 January 2003
The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.
Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.
Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.
It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.
Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.
Unadjusted figures showed overall recorded crime in the 12 months to last September rose 9.3%, but the Home Office stressed that new procedures had skewed the figures.
With new recording procedures taken into account the actual overall rise was just 2%, the Home Office said.
...
Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade
By James Slack
UPDATED:03:42 EST, 27 October 2009
Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.
The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.
In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.
In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.
The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place.
Last week, police in London revealed they had begun carrying out armed patrols on some streets.
...
The Daegu subway fire was a mass murder on February 18, 2003 which killed at least 198 people and injured at least 147. An arsonist set fire to a train stopped at the Jungangno Station of the Daegu Metropolitan Subway in Daegu, South Korea. The fire then spread to a second train which had entered the station from the opposite direction a few minutes later.
...
Originally posted by NIcon
I understand that, but nowhere do I see the founding fathers stating that "owning" a firearm is a "natural right" or "god granted".
Originally posted by NIcon
No, I only said society has the right to come up with the laws which determine "ownership." I didn't mention brainwashing or slavery.
Originally posted by NIcon
Philosophically speaking, society does have a right to do whatever it wants.
But citizens also have the right to resist. That's where the "consent of the governed" comes in. Society has made many mistakes before, laws have been repealed.
Originally posted by NIcon
That' very noble of you. But in all this I don't see anywhere your case that "owning" a gun is a natural right. In your next post you say it's the right to defend yourself, and I agree everyone has a NATURAL right to defend themselves, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a "natural right" to "own" a gun.
Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by NavyDoc
NavyDoc, well I find it philosophically silly to say owning a gun is a natural or god given right. I believe it's society's determination.
But I'm not arguing over the founding fathers intentions. I'm looking at the philosophical question of whether "owning" is a natural right or god granted.
...
Originally posted by NIcon
I'd love to hear the philosophical basis that ownership of firearms is a natural right. In fact I'd love to hear the philosophical basis that the ownership of ANYTHING is natural or god granted. (One's own body being the exception.)
It seems to me that to "own" something is based on the laws of a particular society defining the requirements of said ownership.
If a "criminal" or a "crazy" stole your Colt .45, would you say the firearm was yours because it was "naturally yours"? Or that "god" told you it was yours?
Or, to prove the Colt .45 was yours and it was stolen from you, would you produce the receipt from when you purchased it? And that receipt, being a legal document in society (i.e. a contract), would then be recognized by society as your "ownership" of that firearm.
From what I gather there are no "natural" receipts (i.e. legal documents) and god doesn't have a checkout line...
You did not because the EXCEPTIONS do not make the rule...
It has been proven that hundreds of thousands of people are saved every year in the U.S.A. by those who own guns...
It has also been proven dozens of times if not more that when firearms are banned governments become completely tyrannical.
The fact that in countries like for example Britain crimes with guns have INCREASED, and crimes in general have INCREASED since the gun ban it's a tell tale sign that when you ban firearms from the citizens, the CRIMINALS and CRAZIES still get their firearms to murder people, or use other means such as the Japan 2003 mass murder...
Really?... They mentioned that the RIGHTS to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are among the OTHER Natural/God given RIGHTS that people have...
I never said there are no exceptions and once in a blue moon someone can defend themselves against a firearm without any weapons, but those are EXCEPTIONS, and not the rule...
Originally posted by NIcon
No, I only said society has the right to come up with the laws which determine "ownership." I didn't mention brainwashing or slavery.
Sorry, but society DOES NOT HAVE ANY SUCH RIGHT...
BTW, YOU are the one claiming that one must have a "physical receipt" to claim they own something, and I guess your parents still own you since your DNA comes from them...
If they decide to murder you, or they decide on what you should do, what you should study etc, etc, then according to YOUR definition YOU must do EVERYTHING that they tell you to do...
I guess according to YOUR definition, it should be legal for parents to murder their children, after all, the children's DNA comes from the parents right?
Half of a child's DNA comes from each parent. This means that the child's DNA will not exactly match either of the parents - but will be exactly half of each. The child's DNA is a combination of the parents.
wiki.answers.com...
Can you answer my questions, why are you such a control freak?...
Why must people do what YOU decide they should do?
Examples of people who have done EXACTLY what people like you want to do include Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, etc, etc...
So your position is that absent any qualifing offense toward another it is perfectly acceptable for a large group of people to decide that a smaller group of people no longer "own" something and use force to take it away from them.
Originally posted by NIcon
Now I believe I've answered your questions. Can you please answer mine:
...
So did 18-year-old mom Sarah McKinley. On New Year’s Eve 2011, she was at home alone with her infant son, having lost her husband to lung cancer just a week earlier. When she heard two men trying to break in, she called 911—and grabbed her guns.
“My husband just passed away. I’m here by myself with my infant baby. Can I please get a dispatch out here immediately?” McKinley pleaded.
Twenty minutes went by with no police response. McKinley fired, killing one of the two men, both of whom were armed with 12-inch knives.
“It was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn’t going to be my son,” McKinley told reporters. “There’s nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child.”
As the mother of a 15-month old daughter, I second that.
In October 2012, 12-year-old Kendra St. Clair was also at home alone when a home invader kicked in her back door. Her mother advised her over the phone to hide in the bathroom. Luckily, the preteen grabbed her parents' handgun first -- and shot the intruder in the shoulder. "When I had the gun, I didn't think I was actually going to have to shoot somebody," she told ABC News. "I think it's going to change me a whole lot, knowing that I can hold my head up high and nothing can hurt me anymore." Now that's girl power.
...
Originally posted by NIcon
How is "owning" a gun a natural/god granted right? If it were a natural/god granted right, wouldn't we have to allow children to own and carry guns? We can't deny them life, liberty or the pursuit of hapiness... on what basis could we deny them owning and carrying guns?
Originally posted by NIcon
In your opinion, how is "ownership" of anything defined? Does god say who owns what? or does nature? Who interprets what god or nature proclaims?
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.
Melinda Herman, Mom Who Shot Intruder, Inspires Gun Control Foes
By KATE BRUMBACK 01/09/13 07:47 PM ET EST
LOGANVILLE, Ga. -- A Georgia mother who shot an intruder at her home has become a small part of the roaring gun control debate, with some firearms enthusiasts touting her as a textbook example of responsible gun ownership.
Melinda Herman grabbed a handgun and hid in a crawl space with her two children when a man broke in last week and approached the family at their home northeast of Atlanta, police said. Herman called her husband on the phone, and with him reminding her of the lessons she recently learned at a shooting range, Herman opened fire, seriously wounding the burglary suspect.
...
Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by Dragoon01
It would take all of them as a collective of society. Your two or three buddies would not be enough because a fourth would come along and claim it's theirs, then a fifth and a sixth, etc. Whereas collectively a whole society can agree to the form of government under which to live. And that government then would codify the rules, laws and regulations defining "ownership." And any person of that society could see those rules and know what is considered as "ownership." Those that don't follow those rules and take what they want are then considered criminal.
Now a society through it's government could make a law saying possession is all that's required to prove ownership, but then any thief could steal any item and claim it's his because it's in his possession.
Or a society through it's government could make a law saying possession and three verifying buddies is all that's required, but then the same thief would only need to also find three of his buddies.
If either of these were the case, no one would leave their home for fear of someone breaking in. Or they would carry all their possessions with them at all times.
So your position is that absent any qualifing offense toward another it is perfectly acceptable for a large group of people to decide that a smaller group of people no longer "own" something and use force to take it away from them.
And no, I'm not saying it's acceptable, but that's the way it is (i.e. eminent domain). But I've said it before, and I'm saying it again: a person as an individual does not have to follow the dictates of society. But such a person must be prepared to face the rest of society... and maybe even ostracization from that society.
Luckily the US society does grant "acts of conscience" some leniency and sometimes outright excusal. But that's an "axiom" that society has agreed upon, we do consider motive and intent quite a bit legally. It does not have to be that way, however. I would not want to be part of a society that did not.
BTW, "law is supposed to difficult to dissolve and not so easily subject to the whims of the mob"... that's another "axiom" our society has agreed upon. It does not have to be that way... not too long ago it was subject to the whims of royalty, who mostly claimed their authority was granted from god. Thus my problem with "natural rights" or "god granted" arguments.
edit on 9-1-2013 by NIcon because: added quote so the transition of topics wasn't so jarring
You have certainly not done such thing... You made generalizations which are not true, and tried to make the exception to the rule of one man who was able to disarm a 14 year old would be criminal as the rule...
In fact, here we go, a couple of examples inclluding a 12 year old girl, out of many who was saved because of a gun...