Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Mayhem]

This whole discussion is absurd.

People who believe "rights" are bestowed upon them by other people are just seeking to change those rights to restrict others.

what?

"i have the right to do this"

"a right to do this means nothing, because it can be changed"

"no, it can´t"

"examples"

"you´re just trying to change the rights to restrict others"

o_O

[TZucchini]

People who believe "rights" are bestowed upon them by other people are just seeking to change those rights to restrict others.

People who cannot supply an ounce of evidence for the existence of "natural rights", yet believe in them anyway, haven't properly thought things through.

Do rights exist? Yes, clearly they do. But they're a social construct. They're not universal across time/culture/government. They're constantly changing. They need to be fought for, and protected. Morality is subjective, and the various interpretations of what "rights" are across the globe reflects that.

- - - Updated - - -

Those are people that need to be told what to do at every step of their life otherwise they won't know what to do. They think the government is some all knowing all powerful entity that can strike you down at any moment if you don't obey.

I'd rather feel that way (even though I don't), then be completely fearful and paranoid about everything government does.

I mean seriously. People that share your ideology are completely and utterly batshit insane.

[Tinykong]

People who cannot supply an ounce of evidence for the existence of "natural rights", yet believe in them anyway, haven't properly thought things through.

Do rights exist? Yes, clearly they do. But they're a social construct. They're not universal across time/culture/government. They're constantly changing. They need to be fought for, and protected. Morality is subjective, and the various interpretations of what "rights" are across the globe reflects that.

You do understand the difference between:

"All rights are natural rights."

and

"Some rights are natural rights."

Right?

Also, you can stop harping on the "prove it" line. It's impossible. You can't prove an idea exists.

[TZucchini]

You do understand the difference between:

"All rights are natural rights."

and

"Some rights are natural rights."

Yes. I understand the difference, and I respectfully disagree.

But along that line of thought, if you believe that "some rights are natural rights," which rights are they? Is the right to keep and bear arms a natural right? Or is that one a social construct, created and granted by people?

Also, you can stop harping on the "prove it" line. It's impossible. You can't prove an idea exists.

Proving that an idea exists is easy. Proving the contents of that idea to be factually true...well, that's more difficult, but it's certainly not impossible. It requires evidence.

[Tinykong]

Yes. I understand the difference, and I respectfully disagree.

But along that line of thought, if you believe that "some rights are natural rights," which rights are they? Is the right to keep and bear arms a natural right? Or is that one a social construct, created and granted by people?

I certainly don't think firearm ownership is a natural right, and have never suggested as such.

Disagree all you like, but it remains true that there are certain rights that are universal and inalienable. No government or person has the authority to take them away, and they are not bestowed upon you by any person or group.

Just because you disagree means absolutely nothing.

Proving that an idea exists is easy. Proving the contents of that idea to be factually true...well, that's more difficult, but it's certainly not impossible. It requires evidence.

There will never be evidence that an idea like "natural rights" is factually true. It's like asking for empirical evidence that friendship exists.

[lockedout]

It's like asking for empirical evidence that friendship exists.

Well it can't be proven with math or science.

[Odekahn]

Those who don't believe in natural rights have already given up their rights imo.

[TZucchini]

Disagree all you like, but it remains true that there are certain rights that are universal and inalienable.

That's an opinion.

No government or person has the authority to take them away, and they are not bestowed upon you by any person or group.

Show me a right you believe to be universal, and I'll show you a government with the authority to take that right away.

There will never be evidence that an idea like "natural rights" is factually true. It's like asking for empirical evidence that friendship exists.

Yes. I agree that there will never be evidence that "natural rights" are factually true. It's an idea, that some people believe in. But just believing in something doesn't make it true.

- - - Updated - - -

Those who don't believe in natural rights have already given up their rights imo.

What? I thought natural rights were inalienable. You can't just give them up. They always exist. Right? Right?

[Tinykong]

Show me a right you believe to be universal, and I'll show you a government with the authority to take that right away.

Because right's totally can't be infringed, right?

Yes. I agree that there will never be evidence that "natural rights" are factually true. It's an idea, that some people believe in. But just believing in something doesn't make it true.

And not being able to provide empirical evidence doesn't disprove it, either. It can be proven by reasoning.

[Mayhem]

Because right's totally can't be infringed, right?

lawful infringement?

[Tinykong]

lawful infringement?

If you want to call it that.

The government incarcerating a convicted criminal is slightly different than a warlord keeping slaves in Mauritania.

[Mayhem]

If you want to call it that.

The government incarcerating a convicted criminal is slightly different than a warlord keeping slaves in Mauritania.

i was more talking about right to life, not right to freedom, as this would be on the edge of anarchy

[Nadiru]

If you want to call it that.

The government incarcerating a convicted criminal is slightly different than a warlord keeping slaves in Mauritania.

If I were making the argument, it's not the incarceration in the US, but what happens afterwards which concern the infringement of rights. Few people think felons don't deserve punishment for their crimes, though I guess a lot more people are pro-rehabilitation than punitive.

[Ghostpanther]

That's an opinion.



Show me a right you believe to be universal, and I'll show you a government with the authority to take that right away.



Yes. I agree that there will never be evidence that "natural rights" are factually true. It's an idea, that some people believe in. But just believing in something doesn't make it true.

- - - Updated - - -



What? I thought natural rights were inalienable. You can't just give them up. They always exist. Right? Right?

I think the right to defend yourself is a inalienable right, which is one recognized around the world in most countries. In the US, primarily based on our Constitution, that right extends to the use of a gun or some other type weapon to accomplish it. Which is the heart of why we have the right to keep and bear arms. And even the US Supreme Court has ruled that right is connected to self defense. This is the reason the Founding Fathers wanted it in the Constitution, because even back in 1776, they understood how effective arms were in defending yourself.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I think the right to defend yourself is a inalienable right, which is one recognized around the world in most countries. In the US, primarily based on our Constitution, that right extends to the use of a gun or some other type weapon to accomplish it. Which is the heart of why we have the right to keep and bear arms. And even the US Supreme Court has ruled that right is connected to self defense. This is the reason the Founding Fathers wanted it in the Constitution, because even back in 1776, they understood how effective arms were in defending yourself.

Then there's the founding father notes that guns were needed to stop slave uprisings, and that's why it's in there, but it follows in the same vein as what you're saying. Your property is trying to steal itself from you, and you gotta defend your things!

[PhaelixWW]

Then there's the founding father notes that guns were needed to stop slave uprisings

And inasmuch as the US Bill of Rights was patterned off the English Bill of Rights, the ostensible purpose of acknowledging a right to bear arms is for the purpose of defense, both of self and of country.

SCOTUS agrees, of course.

[Mayhem]

I think the right to defend yourself is a inalienable right, which is one recognized around the world in most countries. In the US, primarily based on our Constitution, that right extends to the use of a gun or some other type weapon to accomplish it. Which is the heart of why we have the right to keep and bear arms. And even the US Supreme Court has ruled that right is connected to self defense. This is the reason the Founding Fathers wanted it in the Constitution, because even back in 1776, they understood how effective arms were in defending yourself.

bold move to claim knowing what people 300 years ago thought when writing stuff down

also a right to defend yourself has regulations in most countries, you know, to keep things civilized and not allow people to kill out of fear or feelings

because apparently the right to defend yourself trumps someone elses right to life

[Ghostpanther]

Then there's the founding father notes that guns were needed to stop slave uprisings, and that's why it's in there, but it follows in the same vein as what you're saying. Your property is trying to steal itself from you, and you gotta defend your things!

I was mainly referring to defense of your life. :P I would never shoot someone for trying to steal something like outside my house. But if they break into my home while I am there, I am not going to assume stealing something is all they intend on doing.

- - - Updated - - -

bold move to claim knowing what people 300 years ago thought when writing stuff down

also a right to defend yourself has regulations in most countries, you know, to keep things civilized and not allow people to kill out of fear or feelings

because apparently the right to defend yourself trumps someone elses right to life

Well, The US Supreme Court supports my assumption. And what they do in other countries is not my concern, but are you implying someone in Germany can attack another with intent to do physical harm and you are not allowed to defend yourself? And sometimes defending yourself does result in the lost of life. Not as the goal, but as a result of successfully doing it.

[Mayhem]

Well, The US Supreme Court supports my assumption. And what they do in other countries is not my concern, but are you implying someone in Germany can attack another with intent to do physical harm and you are not allowed to defend yourself? And sometimes defending yourself does result in the lost of life. Not as the goal, but as a result of successfully doing it.

no, i´m not implying that at all, you´re not allowed to kill them though without having a very good reason to do so, so if your life is at stake you´re naturally doing everything you can to defend yourself, but if your life isn´t at risk you can´t just take another life and claim self defense without having to fear jail time

[TZucchini]

Because right's totally can't be infringed, right?

Wait. So natural rights cannot be taken away by governments. Except for the the governments that do have the legal authority to take them away?

This is making less and less sense. Thus, underlying the inherent problem with an idea like "natural rights".