a reply to: Herolotus
So, you are basically saying I don't right to drink coffee, if I can't manufacture and process coffee beans and brew it myself?
The rights are not something a paper can list and define, they are too numerous. Gun is no different from any other thing you can own - you have the
right to own it, period. There's no one in the Universe that can take that right away - just because it's a 'scary' thing to you or it can be used to
murder people, doesn't change this fact. Many things can be used to murder people, but you still have the right to own them. Why would gun be any
If you knew where rights come from, why we have them, why they are unalienable and why no government has authority or power to remove them (this is
what 'unalienable' means, we can't be alienated from our rights, because they're an integral part of every human being), so 'what laws' a country has
or hasn't, is irrelevant.
It's not only absurd, but a ridiculous thought that you can have rights to (own) those things you can manufacture yourself, but not anything else.
Ever heard of commerce? There's a reason why people can buy and sell things - no one can acquire the skills to manufacture _everything_ themselves.
Different people have different skills, and human rights can't trample on that.
Then think about this; Let's say I manufacture my own gun. My neighbor doesn't have that skill - why would he NOT have the right to have a gun, but I
do? Doesn't that immediately put 'skilled' people to a position of 'having more rights' than unskilled ones? Do you honestly consider this to be fair,
that someone has more rights than others just because they acquired a skill?
Furthermore, what if I want to give or sell the gun to my neighbor. Since I manufactured my own gun, and that somehow gives me the right to own a gun,
it should give me the right to sell it as well. But if my neighbor doesn't have the right to own a gun, how can I sell the gun - this immediately
tramples on MY right to sell the gun, since my customerbase is immediately narrowed down to basically other gun manufacturers, owners, or 'skilled'
This makes no sense whatsoever.
How can anyone have this kind of warped view to rights?
It'd be best if you could at least explain the reason why you think this, and where you think rights come from and why people have them. It'd be also
good if you researched the topic of: 'does everyone have same human rights, or do some people have more rights than others'.
I can of course tell you the answer - we all have identical, 100% same human rights, no one has more rights than me, no one has fewer rights than me.
This could obviously not be a case if manufacturers or other skilled or talented people had more rights. You are basically saying that I can ONLY have
the right to possess and own a painting, if I can paint, a brush and canvas only if I can manufacture them myself, etc.
You should see by now how that particular thinking about rights is as hokum as it gets. Maybe even hogwash.
Sorry again for replying to old post, but I sometimes browse the older topics to cure boredom, and then I notice something so wrong I just have to