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

reply to post by Dragoon01

Dragoon, but the whole reason I posted here is because of the terms "natural rights" and "god granted," and more specifically as applied to "ownership" of guns. If I bypass it what's the point of me being here?

Philosophically I believe that is a lousy argument against a total gun ban, and I believe it's a total mischaracterization that "people" are telling you or forcing you what to do when a government enacts anything.

So for the record, I have not been arguing for a total gun ban.... I DO NOT support a total gun ban... but I would never say it's a natural or god-given right to "own" one as an argument.

But must get back to work.... will be back later.

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by Dragoon01

 

Dragoon, but the whole reason I posted here is because of the terms "natural rights" and "god granted," and more specifically as applied to "ownership" of guns. If I bypass it what's the point of me being here?

Philosophically I believe that is a lousy argument against a total gun ban, and I believe it's a total mischaracterization that "people" are telling you or forcing you what to do when a government enacts anything.

So for the record, I have not been arguing for a total gun ban.... I DO NOT support a total gun ban... but I would never say it's a natural or god-given right to "own" one as an argument.

But must get back to work.... will be back later.

My suggestion to not get wrapped around the term "God given right" was an assumption that you had a problem with "God". I made the assumption that you were in some way taking this from more of an anti-religion position.
That may be an error on my part but I was suggesting that you set aside the term "God given" and use the term Natural right.That term avoids the religious aspects of the philosophy which are independant of one another.

Your posts seems to indicate that you do not understand or do not agree with the idea that someone has a right to own ANY kind of property. You indicate that property is purely a construct of society and that man independant of a social group cannot or does not have ownership of anything. You do seem to give some lip service to the idea that you own your body but that seems to be the limit of ownership in your world view.

I am completely opposed to that concept. Your world view flys in the face of Western civilization and the founding principles of this country. This line of reasoning is completely beyond the scope of just arms ownership. I cant see the benefit of carrying on a debate about this issue because we are not even in the same ballpark. I will leave you with this.

The founders clearly believed in the principles of natural inalienable rights. You clearly understand this because you pointed it out. The Bill of Rights is simply a list of the natural rights that they held to be primary. The second in that list is the right to Keep and Bear arms. Keeping and bearing means ownership. THEY clearly believed it was a natural right and codified it in the founding documents.

reply to post by Dragoon01

I think we're just coming at it from two different directions. I'm trying to find the philosophical basis. Though I may be considered a nihilist, and just maybe an atheist, this is the basis I'm seeing:

Stated very simply: you're born with nothing among a multitude of independent entities. You gather things around you, and things gather around you, and then you go. (Let's forget for now the question of what comes after) Nothing in the natural order of things tells me that I "own" anything, other than my body. Everything is naturally and independently it's own existence. I may have things nearby and use those things, but in nature, I believe, there is no "ownership." What would that even mean "naturally". Does a tree really care if you covet and pamper a rock? Does the rock? What does "private" property even mean in nature? Everything, including us, always is and always will be nature's dominion.

When you are alone in nature you only use and discard things (much as we do now). But once another human comes along only then does the question of "ownership" come up. But once that other human comes along, you have a society (i.e. a group of people who choose to live together under agreed upon circumstances). If that second person does not agree with your definition of "ownership", you most likely would then have a warring society (i.e. a group of people who choose to live together under the agreed circumstance of not agreeing). Except, of course, if they choose to separate and isolate themselves from each other, but then they would not be "living together."

So to me I can see LIFE as a natural right, as without it there are no more questions, no problems, no anything. (Or rather, maybe it's the ultimate axiom.)

LIBERTY I can see because in any situation an individual always has multiple options, whether it's to fight, flee, cry, squeal, ignore or succumb.

THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS I have reservations, just in that I considered "happiness" to be a temporary emotion. But for lack of a better word, I'll accept "happiness." So, we are cognizant entities aware of ourselves, our bodies and our surroundings. And it does seem to be natural that we have a sense of the past, present and future and we recognize the difference. And we also have a natural ability to imagine non existent things, including how things "ought" to be. So it's reasonable to believe we naturally work towards what we think how things "ought" to be, thus in the end making us "happy."

THE RIGHT TO DEFEND ONESELF I see based upon the three above: we are LIFE, we have LIBERTY to react, and we think we "ought" to be "happy".

But the RIGHT TO PROPERTY... I don't see it in the natural order of things, nor do I see the philosophical basis of it. But once a society is introduced.....

But maybe this should be in the Philosophy and Metaphysics section of the site... I don't know, as I could have sworn this thread was originally in the General Conspiracies section but now it's in Rants. So maybe I'm just ranting.

reply to post by NIcon


LOL, in nature there is no ownership?... tell that to a pack of lions in THEIR territory, or a pack of wolves...

Even animals have a basic understanding of ownership, just like if you have/had a dog and took care of it, the dog will take care of you, your house and your possessions as if you were part of it's family and the house is it's territory.

Animals even mark THEIR territory... But it is obvious that you have socialist beliefs, but at the same time you are very confused. I really can't comprehend how you can't understand the simple fact that in order to have life, liberty, or even the pursuit of happiness you must be able to defend yourself hence why the RIGHT to own and bear arms is a natural right. If YOU choose not to have any weapons it is YOUR choice but people have a RIGHT to CHOOSE how they live their lives...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Yes, Electric, I can see that now, if I just personify a pride of lions some more:

"Hey fellow lion citizens, wake up!"

"Huh? what is it?"

"I spotted a prairie dog digging a hole on OUR land."

"Huh? Where?"

"I spotted him from that ridge over there.. he's just a half day away."

"Go back to sleep. He's not bothering us, or threatening to take our women, besides that's a long way to go for just a chicken nugget."

"What's the matter with you guys? We must go drive him off OUR land. We OWN that land. We must protect our PROPERTY RIGHTS! Otherwise any ole joe will think they can dig holes on OUR land."

"Huh?"


or another -----------


"Hey fellow lion citizen, wake up!"

"Huh? what is it?"

"There's a pack of wolves just up the way that just killed a water buffalo... I'm hungry. Let's go take it"

"No, no... we must honor the wolves' PROPERTY RIGHTS, otherwise they will not recognize ours."

"But they did it on OUR LAND!"

"Gosh be darned... THOSE BARBARIANS!"

"Yep... no respect.. seen it with my own eyes."

"ON OUR LAND!"

"Yep.. right smack dab in the middle of OUR land... seen it myself."

"Let's go teach those hoodlums exactly what PROPERTY RIGHTS mean!"

After a 20 minute journey:

"See! See! There they are! Those disrespectful jackals!"

"YOU DUMMY! THAT'S NOT OUR LAND! OUR land ends by those three rocks over there! JEESH! Why do I ever listen to you!?!?!"



It all makes perfect sense.

Has it ever occurred to you that "animals marking their territory" is a human construct to try to understand the behavior of animals in human terms?

reply to post by NIcon


wow... so you never, in your entire life heard, or learned that lions, and wolves do hunt in THEIR TERRITORY?...

All you have shown with the above diatrabe is more and more your ignorance in these topics...

Let me try to enlighten with some truth your ignorance...

The territory


The territory of an animal is defined as the area that the animal will defend against other animals of its species This is different from the home range of an animal, which is defined as the area that an animal lives in, but does not defend against other members of its own species.. It has been difficult for researchers to determine how territorial wolves really are, since research into that area would require researchers to monitor the movements of an entire pack of wolves for an extended period of time, and determine how it reacts to other wolves in its territory. Since wolf packs rarely encounter each other, such observations are limited. However, in general, it does seem that wolves are territorial creatures. Wolf biologists have observed wolf packs chasing and attacking foreign wolves (see Mech, 1970), and large packs will often chase smaller packs that have intruded onto their territory. Wolves are rarely friendly towards other wolves that are unfamiliar to them, and many of them stay within a well-defined area. A wolf pack's territory will contain most of its hunting and travelling areas. Wolf packs are often spaced out enough so that their territories do not overlap significantly. When territories do overlap, the two or more packs still manage to stay far away from each other.
...

www.freewebs.com...

Lion facts

A male lion (Panthera leo) patrols his territory
...

www.bbc.co.uk...

There is an old Spanish saying that goes "te salio el tiro por la culata", which translates very similar to a saying nowadays in English that goes... "You just put your foot in your mouth"...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Yes. Electric, it's all so clear to me now. It's sort of like this:

Gang graffito, the singular of graffiti, is often the first indication that street gangs are active in your community. Graffiti is the newspaper, the billboard, the Internet of the world of street gangs and serves to mark the gang's power and status. Graffiti marks territorial boundaries and serves, as a warning to other gangs that the area marked with unique signs and symbols is the territory or "turf" of a particular gang. Graffiti warns intruders or trespassers from rival gangs and even policemen, that they are not welcome.

www.gangsorus.com...

Sounds awfully similar to your page on wolves:

High ranking wolves will leave urine marks about every 350 meters when they are marking out their territory. Wolves will also mark the same scent post over and over again. It is sometimes claimed that wolves scent mark to mark out the boundaries of their territories, although some authors (see Lawrence, 1997) claim that wolves do not scent mark to mark out territory boundaries, since the boundaries of a wolf pack are rarely clear and rigid. Instead, wolves may scent mark simply to alert other packs that there are already wolves in the area. The scent marks are like "No Trespassing!" signs for wolves.

Since wolves marking its territory in your mind shows "ownership", is it your contention that we should all move out of graffiti infested areas because they are "OWNED" by the street gangs?

If not, please explain why not?