Here for those of you who want a 'civil' and 'rational debate' on gun control

reply to post by Alfie1


Whether Jefferson said it or not it certainly describes the spirit of the second amendment. I for one would prefer to take my chances with the occasional nut eating SSRI drugs than a federal government hell bent on subjugating the populous.

If anyone wants a good read regarding the Second Amendment, give this a go. It was written back in '82, but still holds a considerable amount of relevant information regarding the history of "bearing arms", the mindset of the Founding Fathers and how the Second actually came to be written the way it is.

97th Congress
2d Session COMMITTEE PRINT
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

The comparison between gun regulation and having to have a license to drive is an interesting one.

A few years ago a man in Pennsylvania went to see his doctor. The doctor asked him some questions including "how many alcoholic beverages did he consume per day?". When the man answered that he drank a six pack of beer daily, the doctor notified the State Department of Transportation. PENNDOT promptly suspended the man's drivers license. There was no hearing, no appeal, nothing, just a letter sent to him stating that his driving PRIVILEGES had been revoked. The man had a totally clean driving record, not even a parking ticket. The State Supreme Court ruled in PENNDOT's favor when the man sued to have his license re-instated. All it takes is a bureaucrat at PENNDOT who decides that for no reason YOU shouldn't be allowed to drive and they can revoke ANYONE'S driving privileges and there is not a damn thing that they can do about it. I'm not going to get into the subject of what gives our elected officials the authority to grant us PRIVILEGES. That is a subject for another thread.

The Second Amendment is a RIGHT, not a privilege. It is that way for a reason. In my opinion we have too many gun laws. What good are new ones if they can't enforce the ones already on the books. I don't like the idea of permits or requiring training, because, who controls who gets a permit or who is allowed to receive the training? All it takes is some bureaucrat to decide that YOU don't get a permit or YOU don't get to take the training classes. I actually disagree with the current background checks. I don't trust the Government's ability to keep accurate records. There is no appeal system available if the information that comes up for YOU is inaccurate. If you want my reasoning for this, just look at the TSA's No-Fly List.

reply to post by Bluesma

You are calling a law, illegal...how does that work? (please save your nasty insults and just explain what you mean, I will admit to being ignorant on some subjects and listen when people explain) Either something is illegal to do, and you do not have the right to do it, or it is legal and you have the right to do it....your statements seem paradoxal to me.

he is technically correct. you do not need a drivers license to "travel" in an "automobile", however you DO need one to "drive" a "vehicle".

words in legal documents have very specific connotations. the constitution guarantees the right to travel, and that it shall not be restricted in any way.

traveling in an automobile in regular speech means you are operating some form of ground transportation while not being paid, or hauling anything for business purposes. you are simply going from one point to another for personal reasons. you do not need a license for this and it cannot be restricted, except on private property (though cops aren't taught the difference).

driving a vehicle means you ARE being paid, or are transporting goods for sale. you need a license for this and it can be regulated (ever notice those signs that say no semi-trucks? technically you don't have to follow them if you own the semi, are off duty, and aren't carrying goods for a business).

simply put, if you aren't driving for profit, a license isn't required, nor can it be.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Honor93

 

Originally posted by Honor93
point is, neither a 'license' or a 'law' prevents ppl from exercising their natural rights, period.

And an "assault weapons" ban would not prevent people from exercising their natural right to own a firearm. Even if you have a driver's license, you can't legally drive a funny car on the roadways.

actually, it's been done, 'round these parts anyway.

regarding the ban, correct, it didn't stop criminals at all when it was in effect and another will not produce any better result.

i understand that we disagree about 'conditions' or 'restrictions' or whatever you choose to call them, so, respecting your opinion (although i firmly disagree), what specific 'conditions' do you seem to be 'advocating' ??

here's one reason i ask ...
let's use both the felony and mental illness aspects, k ?

when a felon has completed their sentence and been released back into public circulation, why shouldn't they have every right to exercise their natural right of defense with whatever equal force is available ??

are you suggesting that ppl don't change ?
once a criminal, always a criminal or what ?
[if either is true, then why do we spend soooooo many resources on rehabilitation programs?]

secondly, if a mental illness is not diagnosed, how can anyone be 'prevented' from harming themselves or those around them ?

in light of the above question, is it your contention that EVERY person be mentally evaluated prior to and during gun ownership/possession ??
if so, how is that any different than what Hitler did ??

ETA -- if you believe prisoners, let alone felons who have done their time, are less worthy of protecting this country than Lincoln did, perhaps it is you who should look a bit closer.
www.crf-usa.org...

reply to post by Xen0m0rpH

You have to have a permit to purchase a firearm

where ? not in this state, FL.

I do think you need to know about gun safety and have some training at the least

you'd be misled.

But there are age limits to certain types of weapons

again, where ?
not in this state.
there are age limits to obtaining a permit to carry one or purchase one, but those limits end there.

Protecting the people should be left to the people.

agreed and the LEOs know this as well.

we aren't discussing rights via the UN, nice try though
a right to travel includes all forms of transportation, always has.

The difference between you or me and a mother (unless you are one of course) or a police officer is that they have authority

no, the only difference is that you are brainwashed to believe such nonsense.

i do agree with quite a bit of what you said, but the points above outweigh your other valid statements by discounting the 'authority' held by every individual, everywhere.

Allow your government, to take way your guns and the right to defend yourselves, and your future will be as dark as those poor bastards on this video, open your eyes Americans, don´t lose the right to defend yourselves from tyrants like your forefathers predict it will append in future.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

But I do not advocate letting just anyone drink or own and drive a car.

equally, i don't see you advocating to remove vehicles from repeat drunk drivers (some with double digit convictions) ... sure, suspend their 'license', big freakin deal.

and, what's worse, is you aren't even advocating that they be restricted to bicycles, public transporation, walking or any other method ... even limiting them to a Yugo only

that is your own hypocrisy, not that of 2nd amendment advocates.

reply to post by Bluesma

why do we have a permit for driving a car, and not a bicycle

because driving a car infringes on the rights of others, like those on bicycles

BS but if that's the basis of your reasoning, i do understand.

freedom to harm myself exists from the very moment of birth ... no laws restricts said freedom at any point in time thereafter.

there are no laws restricting suicide, self-emulation, cutting, or any other form of abuse that i could inflict upon myself

no society 'gives' freedom ... until you can understand that, you cannot begin to understand the 2nd.

you're deflecting and i'm not biting.

This thread was supposed to be the civil one- did you post in the wrong thread?

hmmmm, really ???
and yet you claim that i am rude or snarky, my, my aren't you a fine example of civility

i didn't call a law anything, why are you saying i did?

when you decide to quit with the name calling, i might share.
knowledge isn't delivered upon demand, try again.

at least you do admit to being ignorant on the subject ... which is certainly more than most, so, thanks for the honesty

Either something is illegal to do, and you do not have the right to do it, or it is legal and you have the right to do it....your statements seem paradoxal to me

and this is why you do not/will not understand.
traveling is a right, it is not a law or 'legal'.

when you obtain a 'license', you are entering a contract in which you voluntarily relinquish said right, understand ??

you are confusing laws with rights.
it is my 'right' to kill an attacker. (self-defense)

while it is 'illegal' to kill anyone, it is still my right.
and, depending on the circumstances, the 'act' (exercising my right) may be found 'legal' rather 'illegal' as current law prescribes.
does that help ??

i'll address the rest later ... gotta go for now.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Bluesma

 

travel encompasses the common "method of the day" and that includes motorized vehicles.

forcing someone to use some other form of travel is 'restricting' their right to travel, get it ??

how does the 'power to harm others' figure into this conversation ?
are you supposing i couldn't propel an object while walking ?
or are you suggesting that a horse couldn't possibly get out of control and stampede a market or something ??

seriously ... you're really reaching with that angle.

who said anything about 'cops letting' anyone do anything ?
i mentioned something about them 'getting caught' or did you exclude that from comprehension on purpose ?

children don't have 'legal authority' to drive until they succumb to the illegal contract forced upon them by their state

however, the addition of a presumed legal requirement does not EVER remove/restrict their RIGHT to travel as necessary.

now, you are presuming that every child who has had this experience has been caught and that'd be a mistake.

point is, neither a 'license' or a 'law' prevents ppl from exercising their natural rights, period.

no more than the AWB did for all the years it was in effect.
crime and gun crime specifically, increased

and that same crime has been on a steady decline ever since it naturally expired.

btw, without derailing this topic, do you know why the first 'driver license' was issued ??
it had NOTHING to do with ability or skill.
*** it was a 'legal permit' to (be noisy) disrupt the peace of the neighborhoods in which they transversed ... hence, the license was specific permission to 'break existing laws', get it ??

the whole license scheme is another topic addressed in many other threads.
licenses are permission to break laws ... always has been and should be remembered as such.

It appears that you are of the opinion that individuals should have no restrictions on their behavior and be allowed to exercise what ever they deem to be rights. I assume you believe this to be true up to the point of doing harm to others, and for this they should be held accountable. Unless you're a complete outlaw and think too bad for them, they got in my way while I was exercising my rights. you must see that at some point there needs to be some restraint. Now don't look at this as a slippery slope. but some behaviors we can't allow and must be punished. Killing another person while engaging in some reckless driving or causing the death of someone through the discharge of a gun either accidentally, through negligence or irresponsible behavior. requires that the one responsible be punished.

I think it appropriate to point out that these two activities, driving and possessing firearms are among the very few activities that can result so easily in harm to others.

In the early days of driving, it was pretty much anything goes. Eventually deaths started to occur. People were being killed by other people driving. Naturally some attention was given to this. It was determined that, do to improved roads and auto design, unheard of speeds were being attained, a marvel of progress. Suddenly this harmless right or behavior was in need of some rules and restraint. Technology, had literally changed reality.

Now gun ownership is one activity or right that Americans have enjoyed and hold dear. We were fortunate enough that those who founded our country and declared our sovereignty included in their organizing documents the right to bear arms. to own guns, ( Some take this as not just a right but also an obligation,)

Now I wouldn't want to compare automobile driving to gun ownership, but in both areas there has been significant advances over time. Just as the new driving experience resulted in increased destruction, and a rethinking of driving activity, technology has given gun ownership new realities and, because of these new realities, attention must be paid and discussions must begin.

Gun ownership will never be denied in this country because it helps define our nature, and does go some in preserving our inalienable rights. But Ccming to terms with the recent destructive examples of firearm tech is going to involve more than calling for expanding the unrestricted exercising of this right,

reply to post by Bluesma

since you are stuck on cars, let's take this one step further, k?

no one is required to meet permit or license or age requirements/restrictions in order to purchase a car (which is not enumerated in the BoR) ... but yet, you want to make it mandatory to purchase a firearm ? why ??

You clamed that children get caught doing this all the time

i made no such statement in this thread, if you believe otherwise, i'd suggest you link it.

what i did say is that plenty of children have had this experience and do not get caught ... hence, they are not being 'illegal', they are exercising a right.
as for those who have been caught (few and far between), the 'case' is generally dismissed.
and i gave you the primary reason why.

What is a "natural right"

the same thing others refer to as 'God-given', which is a belief of which i no longer subscribe.

if you've not heard of the phrase before, let me explain it this way ... we are born with the right to life, correct ?

then it follows that your 'natural' right to life, includes defending said life. understand ?? natural, as in from birth.

The noise would spook the horses, causing people on them or in the vehicles pulled by them to get hurt or killed... the car noise was very dangerous to other people! You had to learn the laws, like you had to have some walk ahead on foot to intersections to hold up a flag and warn others you were coming. Because you were a danger to others... Get it???

yes, i get your myopic view, however, that doesn't mean it's correct.
the primary reason was because the laws regarding disturbing the peace were being broken, period. the 'license' gave the holder permission to break existing laws.

don't take my word for it, read about it for yourself ... why the first driver license was issued to Benz

While some may think that the first driver’s license was issued in order to maintain automobile safety on the roads, it was actually issued so that one man could drive his automobile, much to the discontent of his neighbors.

before you diss the source, check any number of them, it's not a secret.

or look this over and notice that no such 'licenses' existed in the US (anywhere) before 1900.
yr when US driver licensing initiated by state

and if memory serves, 1903 was the first year such a scheme was forced upon the population.
however, automobiles had been around for the better part of a decade.

so, although 'safety' is a great cop-out to continue horn-swaggling the public at large, it's still BS of the highest order.

reply to post by Bluesma

For piloting a plane

depends on the purpose.
so you realize i'm not being rude or dismissive ... no, you don't need a 'license' to fly a plane

see for yourself ... advancedriskology.com... ... heck, they don't even require ANY experience.

now, the part that you are either missing or purposefully excluding is the 'commercial' factor involved with all licensing schemes.

the ppl who have participated in the above, don't even have an intention to get a license, they just want the experience.

and i'm pretty sure crop-dusters that tend their own fields, are still part of the 'exclusions' as they are not 'for hire'.

so, getting back to firearms ... why should anyone be required to carry a 'license' of any kind ??
[well, i agree with the 'concealed' part ... i believe concealment should be licensed, however, in the same vein, Constitutional carry (open carry) should be absolute for every owner]

reply to post by okyouwin

it appears you are painting a picture that merely suits yourself.
we are not discussing 'behavior', we are discussing ownership of property.

how 'bout i use Jefferson's own words to 'sum it up' for ya, eh?

concealed.wordpress.com...

“ Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” (letter to Isaac Tifany, 1819)

restraint is exercised by the individual, not the law or its agents.

Now don't look at this as a slippery slope.

why not?
that's exactly what it is.
if this 'property' is to be further restricted, what's next ???

but some behaviors we can't allow and must be punished

punishing behavior is not equal to preventing it

Killing another person while engaging in some reckless driving or causing the death of someone through the discharge of a gun either accidentally, through negligence or irresponsible behavior. requires that the one responsible be punished

yes, and we already have provisions for each of those infractions, don't we ??

I think it appropriate to point out that these two activities, driving and possessing firearms are among the very few activities that can result so easily in harm to others.

i think you need glasses
oh plz, surely you aren't that myopic in your view, are you ?

source for this nonsense please.

In the early days of driving, it was pretty much anything goes. Eventually deaths started to occur. People were being killed by other people driving. Naturally some attention was given to this. It was determined that, do to improved roads and auto design, unheard of speeds were being attained, a marvel of progress. Suddenly this harmless right or behavior was in need of some rules and restraint.

i provided evidence to the contrary some posts ago.
your turn.

firearm 'tech' as you stated hasn't changed much at all, at least in the last 100yrs or so.
need a link ?

i haven't suggested such a thing.
elimination of gun free zones would be a great place to start.

background checks are useless so i don't see any need to expend additional resources on what has proven to be ineffective.

cuffing the hands of gun runners like E Holder would be my focus.
crippling the 'black market' by oversaturating the public at large might be another angle.

these of course, are just far too logical/radical to be considered ... cause the 'goal' is disarmament and we all know it.

Originally posted by Honor93

freedom to harm myself exists from the very moment of birth ... no laws restricts said freedom at any point in time thereafter.
no society 'gives' freedom ... until you can understand that, you cannot begin to understand the 2nd.

The whole idea of freedom and restriction is either a question of society structure, or your personal principles....
or you could even narrow it down to your own choice of principles, when you consider that you can choose to live in the society that reflects the structure you prefer.

The 2nd (and all the rest of the document) are written by men in and for a specific society. It is not "natural", it did not grow on a tree and it's principles do not pertain to any other society.

I of course do what I want, but the reactions and consequences I may experience depend upon what country and community I find myself in at the time.

i didn't call a law anything, why are you saying i did?

You wrote:

the illegal contract forced upon them by their state

(the illegal contract, being, in your words, "the legal authority to drive" )
you called a law illegal... that is a copy and paste from your post.

when you decide to quit with the name calling, i might share.

I did not do any name calling. Not once.

at least you do admit to being ignorant on the subject

I admit to being ignorant on your opinion of the subject. I admit to being ignorant of this concept of "natural rights".

you are confusing laws with rights. it is my 'right' to kill an attacker. (self-defense)

It is your right because the country you are in has deemed it legal to do so in self defense.

and, depending on the circumstances, the 'act' (exercising my right) may be found 'legal' rather 'illegal' as current law prescribes.

The laws make it legal to do so in some circumstances, illegal in others. That is clear and we agree. So your right or restriction is determined by the laws of your particular society. That is exactly what I said.

Originally posted by Honor93

you want to make it mandatory to purchase a firearm ? why ??

I don't want to "make it" anything. I stated my opinion on the subject- I prefer systems which make it mandatory to have a permit to purchase a firearm because having a firearm in your possession gives you a lot of power to harm or kill other people, accidently or purposefully.
It comes therefore, with an equal amount of need for "responsibility" while living within a community of people . Entering a contract with your people, promising that you shall strive to be responsible with this power, is something I find appropriate.

"You clamed that children get caught doing this all the time" i made no such statement in this thread, if you believe otherwise, i'd suggest you link it.

I don't know how to link to just the post- it is on page one

it's happened for all the years alcohol has been available

That is a long time.

what i did say is that plenty of children have had this experience and do not get caught ... hence, they are not being 'illegal', they are exercising a right.

Here we go again- whether you get caught or not, an act you are doing is legal or illegal in a particular country.
I can steal a car, and even if not caught, I did an illegal act in the USA.
I can consider doing and act and determine ahead of time whether it is legal or illegal.

we are born with the right to life, correct ?

??? WHO gave that "right"? I guess, if you are born in a country in which that is deemed a right, so it is.
Otherwise, I have no sense of this you refer to. We are born. Outside of mans laws, that is just what it is. I see no inherent meanings.

On the question of driving licenses, I looked up references last night and need to go gather them again. The first laws were in England, since Europe was way ahead of the US with automobiles. The first driving license in the US appeased the people who were upset about the danger the cars were causing. Entering a contract in which one agreed to be responsible (and accept the consequences if they were not) allowed drivers to practice with less social pressure against them.

I must leave right now, but will come back with appropriate links.

reply to post by Bluesma

whose whole idea of freedom ??
imho, freedom is a principle all its own.

society will either embrace it or fight it.
in my lifetime, society has generally fought it from every angle imaginable.
what's been your experience ??

self-defense is natural.
always has been, always will be.

do ya now ??
do you really do all you want without concern for those around you ?

if so, then your idea of freedom and mine are miles apart.

not derailing this topic with more 'license' BS.
i get it, you don't understand ... then take some time to learn.

you called a law illegal

no, i called the 'contract' illegal as it is entered, currently.

contracts entered into without full disclosure are invalid. (illegal)
and that's all i'm gonna say about that in this topic.

my apology for the 'name-calling' statement ... confusing replies in different threads.

I admit to being ignorant of this concept of "natural rights"

you might say i recall first reading the phrase in one of Jefferson's writings many, many moons ago and it stuck.
need a reference ?
plz don't diss the source, it was the 'home' library as a kid and believe it or not, i read it there first.

www.britannica.com...

Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their powers; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. Every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him. And, no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third. When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions, and the idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural right. The trial of every law by one of these texts would lessen much the labors of our legislators, and lighten equally our municipal codes.

while i understand this 'concept' of natural rights is clearly foreign to you, it is not to us.

It is your right because the country you are in has deemed it legal to do so in self defense

NO, it is still my right, even if exercising it is found to be 'illegal'.
not every act of self-defense is 'legal' or found in a court of law to be 'legal' ... see "Dooley" case in Tampa region for more details.

So your right or restriction is determined by the laws of your particular society

no and NO and absolutely No.
rights are self-evident, not 'determined' by law.
laws are the tools of tyrants, not 'rights'.
laws restrict rights, they do not ever expand them.

reply to post by Bluesma

you're funny
you said ...

I don't want to "make it" anything.

ok, fair enough ... but then, the next sentence reads ...

I prefer systems which make it mandatory to have a permit to purchase a firearm

with that, i don't believe you know what you really want.
now, if you cannot see your own hypocrisy when displayed for you, there isn't much i can do to help ya.

a contract of conscience is entered the moment we are born ... no paper contract supercedes that of our own morality, period.

i would guess you are referring to this one ?

yes, you can be regulated to use the roads commercially, but no law stops anyone from travelling unless you allow it.

classic examples are children driving their drunk parents.
it's happened for all the years alcohol has been available and more often than not, when caught, they are not prosecuted ... why ?

because no law can legally infringe on their right to travel.
legalities of the circumstances may be argued in court but the right is absolute.

or the next one ...

children don't have 'legal authority' to drive until they succumb to the illegal contract forced upon them by their state.

however, the addition of a presumed legal requirement does not EVER remove/restrict their RIGHT to travel as necessary.

now, neither of those contain what you've accused me of stating.

contrary to your opinion, i did NOT say [color=amber]"You clamed that children get caught doing this all the time" and an apology would be appreciated.

ok, here we go again ... the 'right' to travel is not and cannot be illegal.
until you understand that you cannot begin to understand the rest.

good, you can determine 'right from wrong', that's the first step.
now, just because a specific action is 'a right', exercising it may still be 'wrong' ... does that make more sense ?

it doesn't have to be 'illegal' to be 'wrong', understand ?
it also doesn't have to be 'legal' to still be 'a right'.
killing is wrong (yet legal in some places), but sometimes it is also necessary to preserve life. (which can make the exercise of 'a right' equally wrong).
better ??

who gave what right ? the right to life ????
i'll answer 'nature' ... it does make it easier to understand 'natural rights', doesn't it ??

no government and no law gave me life, that's for sure.

some say the 'creator', some say 'god', some say 'mommy' and some say 'daddy', however, there are many answers to that question and mine should suffice for this conversation.

if you believe this, then link it, i showed you otherwise ... your choice to ignore it is not alleviating your ignorance very much.

The first driving license in the US appeased the people who were upset about the danger the cars were causing.

and not a news article or opinion piece either.

let's see the legislative arguments that emphasize 'danger', please.

here's my contribution.

www.iihs.org...
Historically, the licensing age has not been a major road safety issue

These information sources reveal that the issue of a minimum licensing age has not been given much attention over the years, and historical records documenting the rationale for such laws are scarce.

Licensing authorities and road safety experts often do not know why a minimum licensing age was introduced or why a specific age was selected. This is perhaps not surprising given that such laws, in many jurisdictions, date back to the beginning of the 20th century. Most of the historical records available are the original public acts or motor vehicle acts, which do indicate the age restriction being applied and under what conditions, but provide little or no information of why this particular restriction was selected. Similarly, key documents such as the Uniform Vehicle Code, first published in 1926, provide guidelines for minimum age requirements but do not discuss the rationale for these laws.

Since the advent of the motor vehicle at the beginning of the 20th century, driver’s licenses were issued principally as sources of revenue and means to identify drivers who could be held responsible for damages inflicted by their motor vehicles on other people and/or property.

out of room, continued next post.

reply to post by Bluesma

continued from previous post ...

same source
Even in the early years of licensing laws, when revenue and driver identification were the principal focus, state authorities recognized that licenses could be used to ensure public safety. Indeed, the 1899 law in Chicago required “the Chief Health Officer to determine the applicant’s ability to operate in a safe manner the vehicle amongst horse drawn vehicles on city streets” (Smith, personal communication). With rapid increases in motorization, concern about the mounting number of traffic crashes led to the realization that licensing procedures could be used to control drivers and, presumably, promote road safety.

your turn but please leave the 'presumptions' where they belong, k ?
'safety' is the catch-all phrase to make the 'laws' palatable to the public.
it (safety) was never an incentive to create the laws ... it was and still is, an afterthought ... just like with firearms.

Originally posted by Honor93

Freedom.......society will either embrace it or fight it. in my lifetime, society has generally fought it from every angle imaginable. what's been your experience ??

My experience has been that in some communities and countries, specific acts are deemed rights/ legal/ acceptable, within their territory... in other communities and countries, other acts are .

Each grouping determines where they percieve the rights and freedom of one begin to interfere with the rights of another. For example, in a country which determines all people have the right to live, then acts which interfere with that are deemed unacceptable/illegal.
Example:
In the country I am currently in, it is legal to keep your firearms in a locked metal container, but illegal to keep them just sitting in the open around your house.
The reasoning is that it was observed many toddlers would pick them up and shoot themself or another on accident. Or someone else would pick it up and use it against it's owner, or take it to use against somene else.

When applying for a permit, you need to agree to this law of responsible ownership. It is not infallible, but it cuts down a lot on the amount of deaths members of the society who have the right to live.

do ya now ?? do you really do all you want without concern for those around you ?

I am guessing that was supposed to be a response to my comment "I do what I want, and the effects and consequences I may get depend upon the country I am in" ?

Yes, I do. I cannot think of any time I wanted to do something that happened to be illegal where I was at the time.
(except as a teen) but I acknowledge that even my choice to respect the laws is my choice- I can choose to kill someone for fun, and with full knowledge I risk going to jail for life, or being put to death there. I just haven't had any such desire . Concern for those around me is inherent, instinctive and "what I want to do" is highly influenced by that. It is, in fact, why I see reason behind laws which attempt to protect people. I am part social animal.

(on this concept of "natural rights")

you might say i recall first reading the phrase in one of Jefferson's writings many, many moons ago and it stuck.

Okay- this has different terms in different cultures, but it is simply the base principles that a society lays down. The "farthest outer limits" of the ethical structure, if you will. Calling it "natural" is a method that also includes using descriptions as "God given", "of Allah" "sacred" or "universal"... it calls upon a higher power, non-physical, to impress to the people that no humans are responsible for laying down this rule- it is above us all. Untouchable.
It works to condition early behaviors and ethics.
Then later you grow up, and become aware it is like Santa or the Easter Bunny.

Within those outer limits, more specific details emerge with time, experience, technology, and according to conditions. (especially the proximity of population to each other)

not every act of self-defense is 'legal' or found in a court of law to be 'legal' ...

Right you are- but if it was judged in a court of LAW as "ILLEGAL", then it was, in fact "ILLEGAL"
Illegal means- "you did not have the right to do it."

rights are self-evident, not 'determined' by law.
laws are the tools of tyrants, not 'rights'.
laws restrict rights, they do not ever expand them.

"Self-evident"- --more Santa Claus type of language. You take God out of the picture, there is only us.
We do all share survival instincts- we feel the drive to live, and to pursue pleasure and happiness, and without having to be taught.
That is just an evolved biological system, not a "right".

Some laws expand my right to live. The laws that limit another persons right to "pursuit of happiness" at the point of murder for laughs, or driving drunk; for example!


It is true ANYWHERE that to have more freedom within your countries "outer limits", you need to move further and further our from the centers of concentration of population. The further away from other people you are, the less limited you are by social contracts. That is why some people, (like me!) choose to live on a farm in an isolated area- my kid can drive the truck or tractor and nobody cares- there is none else around for him to harm.
When you live in a crowded are, yes, you must restrict more your movements out of respect for others.

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH


The analogous argument is the vehicle is a tool.
It's use is regulated.
The right to own one, or what type, is not.

If you are intoxicated, it is not legal to drive.
Therefore, if you're not in the right state of mind, you cannot use a tool.
But you still have the right to own/purchase the tool.

Fair enough. But I was making the more general point that behaviour is circumscribed by law and we don't tend to have problems with it.

And the items themselves are not similar. There is a desire amongst gun advocates to place all 'objects' on a level playing field, as though they are all totally neutral. But a nuclear warhead or a biological weapon are just objects. And most people don't think you should be allowed to own them.