Yet Another Way of Life Threatened by Those Who Want To Force Other People How to Live.

page: 5
24
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   

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?



I hate to butt in, but the concept of natural rights, or rights that are intrinsic to a human for simply being human, were believed by the foundnig fathers and were adopted from the new (at the time) enlightenment philosophies of people like John Locke.





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...




posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



You can't protect yourself against another firearm with a stick...Sorry but you are not going to win this argument...


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....




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...


I understand that, but nowhere do I see the founding fathers stating that "owning" a firearm is a "natural right" or "god granted".




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...


No, I only said society has the right to come up with the laws which determine "ownership." I didn't mention brainwashing or slavery.


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.



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...



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.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I live in Texas. There are more guns in this state than most others. Never shot a gun and don't plan on owning one. It wouldn't make me feel safe at all. I think most gun owners are responsible. Not concerned about being capped for no good reason.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

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.



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.

As for the founding fathers, they were quite clear on their thoughts of firearms ownership being apart of the natural right of self defense.




"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}])




posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   


"...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)


People who say that the FF did not intend for citizens to ahve guns have either not read what the FF said onthe subject or are being disingenuous.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 

NavyDoc, here's what I subscribe to philosophically:



"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...



So philosophically to me, natural rights are those things that are not "written down" as they are "universal." Legal rights are the ones that are codified, such as the Bill of Rights. And that is what a society as a whole comes together to decide upon.

But this is interesting from that page:



"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."


I wonder why Jefferson would replaced "property"? No one really knows, but maybe Ben Franklin was correct:



"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...



Why is it a "creature of society"? Because ownership only applies and is defined in society. It says "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is yours." If you are not in a society, questions of ownership never come up.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
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.

I believe the whole idea of ownership is a social construct, therefore not natural or god given.

I do believe society can come together and determine what a person can "own" and in what situations it can be "used."

If society does not determine that, then no one would own anything but only what they have in their hands and can hold on to, which would be barbaric.

But to the questions of guns and their ownership, I haven't stated if I'm for or against. I've just stated that society is the one to decide. But do I believe there should be limits... I don't believe my neighbor should be able to lob hand grenades over the fence.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



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.


Just another post as I really didn't address this point. Don't you think it's society's duty to determine what "tools" are reasonable to a reasonable citizen in a reasonable situation?

Arguments can be made for a whole slew of outrageous "tools" and outrageous situations, but who is to decide what is reasonable? Each individual for themselves? or Society? or someone's version of "God"?



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   

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....


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...


Not to mention that it has benn proven dozens of times that when you ban the citizenry from owning firearms what happens is that CRIMINALS and CRAZIES are the only ones who have them appart from the police, not to mention that such a nation becomes tyrannical...

Sorry, but you did not win ANY 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.
...

www.dailymail.co.uk...


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.
...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

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...


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.
...

en.wikipedia.org...


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".


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...

Tell me with a straight face that you can win a fight against a criminals that is 5 feet from you when he has a firearm and you have nothing to defend yourself...

Seriously, do you even think before you post such non-sensical arguments?...



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?....


YOU opened that can of worms...


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.


It does not because it has also been shown that when this happens the mayority, or those in power can take the rights of minorities and individuals...



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.


Then again according to YOUR definition your parents own you until you die, hence you better do EVERYTHING they tell you to do...

You sir have been twisting facts, and made up your own definitions...

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...

edit on 9-1-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: add links and comments.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   

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.
...


Thank God that YOU do not decide the laws of a nation or what are natural rights...

Under YOUR definition, a society has the right to take away all rights, including individual rights.

Under YOUR definition parents own their children because the children's DNA comes from the parents hence according to YOUR definition, it should be legal for all those parents who murder their children, and who abuse them to do as they please with their children until the children die. Even when you are an adult your parents still own you according to YOUR definition.

YOU claim that you are not talking about slavey, yet when the parents own their children because of their DNA that is slavery... Not to mention that YOU even claim that a society can dictate what a person should do, how they should live, and die...


You really need to think really hard on your beliefs, because to me it is apparent that you haven't thought things through at all.

edit on 9-1-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   

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...





This is flat out insane. obviously you have no idea what property rights are.
Is your position that without the presence of some government or legal entity the idea of private property is non existant?
So property is what ever the government says it is?
That would be consistant with anti-private property socialist philosophy. Are you taking that position?

Private property is the VERY BASIS of natural rights!
My possesion are mine because I own them and yes the ability to defend myself and my property is very much a principle of natural rights. Absent a legal system my property is mine because I will kill whomever tries to take it from me. The legal system is a nonviolent means of arbitrating property disputes. There are other means but the ownership of property is independant of those means and the very basis of Natural rights. The best means of defense available is by extension a Natural right.

I will add above since I did not read your subsequent posts until after I posted this reply. Substitue your "society" for my use of "government" above. Your contention that "society" decides what constitutes property and its limits is correct however that does not remove the natural right to property. What society decides and uses force to demand compliance is not always consistant with what is right. I still have a right to own property even if the government (society) decide to send police to take it from me.
edit on 9-1-2013 by Dragoon01 because: add info



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



You did not because the EXCEPTIONS do not make the rule...


You did not leave room for exceptions... you said "You can't protect yourself against another firearm with a stick" PERIOD! It's not my fault if you based your argument on no exceptions. You could have said "You most likey cannot protect yourself..." but you did not.

But that's fine if you want to backpedal on that statement.



It has been proven that hundreds of thousands of people are saved every year in the U.S.A. by those who own guns...


And the reverse has been proven too... that "hundreds of thousands" people die every year from guns... that still does not prove your point that "owning" a gun is a natural or god given right.

And just as a stickler.. where's the proof that "hundreds of thousands" are saved. Is "hundreds of thousands" just a random, enigmatic number you've come up with?



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...


I agree with all this, and it's a very persuasive argument why not to ban guns. It certainly is a much better argument than it's a "Natural right" or it is a "God granted right."



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...


Yes, OTHER... a vague term... nowhere does it say "owning" a gun is either a natural or a god given right. As NavyDoc, pointed out they recommended it.



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...


And once again, you said "YOU CAN'T"... full stop... no exceptions... but I'm fine with you backpedaling on the statement.



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...


If society doesn't determine ownership, in your view, who does? Just because a person says they own it? Any common criminal can steal something and say they own it.

If two people claim they own the same item, how would it be decided who actually owns it, Electric? Ask God? Read Tea Leaves? Just let them fight it out?

So who determines "ownership" if not society?



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?


I think perhaps you should learn about DNA some more... here's a quick primer:



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...


Your DNA is derived from your parents, it is not an exact match. It's kind of like saying that you own "3467 Park Place" because you have deeds to "34 Park Place" and "67 Park Place". Sorry but it doesn't work that way.

It is a fun can of worms when people don't know what they are talking about...



Can you answer my questions, why are you such a control freak?...

Why must people do what YOU decide they should do?


Excuse me, Electric, I don't believe I've ever said people should do what I decide. I've even recommended in some cases to do things against society's dictates, if that person deems it necessary.

My argument has been that society decides the requirements of "ownership."



Examples of people who have done EXACTLY what people like you want to do include Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, etc, etc...


Now that's a list of scary names... all dead... but I don't believe NIcon (who is alive) has never stated what he wants to do..

continued in next post
edit on 9-1-2013 by NIcon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Now I believe I've answered your questions. Can you please answer mine:

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?

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?



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragoon01
 

Dragoon01, I'm using the term "society" specifically, and not using the term "government." My definition of "society" is a group of people who choose to live together under agreed upon circumstances.

I'm also using the term "rights" not as referring to either good or bad, but rather to what an entity is capable of doing under agreed upon circumstances. Our government could repeal the 2nd amendment. It would be "legal" based upon what our society has agreed upon. It's not probable, but it's not impossible.

So yes, with no society there is no "ownership", it would only be "possession." There is a big difference, philosophically speaking.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


So your position is that a single man on a remote island cannot "own" anything because their is no "society" there to tell him he owns it?
We need the approval of a group of people to agree that we "own" something rather than just possessing it.

How many people need to agree that we own something rather than just that we possess something?
If I get two or three of my fellow gun buddies to agree that I own my rifle is that enough?
Is that agreement trumped because a larger group of people agree that they can take something away from me?
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.

BTW that would be the definition of a democracy. A large group of people voting to rape and pillage a small group of people. Would it be legal? Well it could be under the law, but law is supposed to difficult to disolve and not so easily subject to the whims of the mob. The law can be corrupted to the point that it no longer protects the few from the many. That would be the point that it violates the natural inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. At that point the few are perfectly justified in using deadly force to defend themselves from the many.
You are delving into the realms of what is legal and what is RIGHT those two things are not always the same.
edit on 9-1-2013 by Dragoon01 because: additonal info



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   
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



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

Now I believe I've answered your questions. Can you please answer mine:


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...


...
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. Im 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 wasnt 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.
...

townhall.com...


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?


Again...because you don't have a right to life unless you can protect yourself, and the best protection against criminals are 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?


Society does not define ownership even when many try to do it, and many more force people to follow their definitions like you would like it to happen...

As for where did I get the number of hundreds of thousands of people are saved by guns?... I actually used a lower more conservative figure...


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.

www.pulpless.com...

edit on 10-1-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   
And we got another case of a woman who defended herself with a gun...


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.
...

www.huffingtonpost.com... pLid%3D255162

You better hide, she has a gun...



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   

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




All rights are a characteristic of an individual. “Society” has no right that individuals themselves do not possess.
You are mistaking the rules a civil society builds to determine what constitutes theft with the individual right to property.
Again the basic question: Can an individual man alone on an island "own" something? The answer is absolutely! Possession IS something different because he does not have to physically possess an object to "own" it. He does not need the approval of anyone else to determine his ownership of his property. Adding a second man to the island in no way changes the first mans right to ownership. He still has that right.. Because he has that right to ownership of property if the second man takes his property through force or fraud then he is morally justified in using force to take it back. That’s what this boils down to and that is why it is at its basic level intertwined with the right to self defense. Again as I said earlier, civil society has devised a number of rules to arbitrate these types of disputes in the hopes of mitigating conflict. Society will define what it legally considers ownership however that is to aid in that arbitration and in no way does it take away the natural right to property that individuals have. A society may determine that a group of people no longer have a right to own property, at that point society has crossed an ethical line and that group is absolved from their ethical boundary on the use of force to retain what is by natural right theirs.

You seem to be getting all wrapped around the idea of “god given rights”. Get past that label call it human rights or natural rights if you want to. God is not necessarily a factor. We are endowed by our creator, that can be God or Buddha or the big bang it matters not. We have rights based on the fact that we are born Life, Liberty and Property.
Yes Society can agree to take away any of those rights from us but they would be ethically wrong and we would be ethically and duty bound to resist that.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



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...


Did you not like my link that refuted your "You can't" and proved that yes, actually, "you can"? Or did I just not post enough examples? Or are the examples you post valid, while mine are not?

Would you like another example? One with cool video? Here you go:

americansheepdog.com...

But two questions:

1) where is this "rule" you speak of written?
2) specifically, what questions have I not answered?


Thanks for the link to the survey. I'm at work right now, but will post about that later.





top topics
 
24
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join