misinformation is epidemic; the media lies to you

[ZECH]

Nice quote. Although I can't seem to verify James Madison actually said this, it is something he more then likely would have agreed with.

This worked for the 1700's. In present times, how enslaved is our press? Does CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX all have a stockpile of weapons in case "they" come? What is really humorous is do gun advocates really think their peashooters could hold off a F16 or a Sherman tank?

One person won't but MILLIONS will!

 

[KelJu]

One person won't but MILLIONS will!

Hell, one tank can be disabled with a sticky bomb and a strategic plan.

 

[BoneCrusher]

Your "I know you are but what am I?" babble was snipped.

As much as you've endeavored to posture your self as intellectually above me I really don't feel a need to beat you Will, I'm just not in need of taking any shit off of you. All this really is is a pissing match. I tried to give us both an out and avoid this senseless quibble but you just can't help but insult me. Okay ... as you wish.

As you decided to answer your own question, there is little need for me to attempt to correct you. His response and your defense of that response, simply tells me you both don???t really understand the concept, and then both tried the high school debate tactic of the straw man. Natural rights is a term that has dropped out of the current lexicon in favor of terms such as intrinsic rights, universal rights, unalienable and perhaps most appropriate, human rights.(1)

Either your ego obscures your ability to comprehend my meaning, or the simple fact that I said you were wrong offended your shallow confidence so much that you are trying to create a false image of what I said so that you can then argue with me and feel all better about your self ... tossing out the nice little insults as you go.

The right of self defense, is a basic human right no government can grant or take away. No matter which time a society chooses to ignore those rights, does not alter them or remove them. Your feeble example of the white man feeling superior over the black man simply shows you don???t understand the concept on the larger scale. The white people could ???feel??? it was their natural right to be superior, but it was simply wrong, and their basic human right of equality was denied to them. Basic human rights, intrinsic rights, universal rights, or what ever the lingo of the day is, do not change, ever. Currently for example, it???s illegal for most gay people to get married, and that is simply an example of their being denied their basic human right of equality in the society.

Hey Ralph Waldo Emerson. If you had the intellect you pretend to posses you would have understood that what you just posted as your proof of my not getting you is in fact what I have already covered in what you quoted. My point was that as a child the white kid was outside the requirement of natural right because of his environmental conditioning. As he grew and became his own man he also became responsible for his own thoughts and actions. While he may still be entitled to FEEL he is superior, he could not interfere with the black man's natural right to vote.

Following paragraph or yours? More of same

That society, or parts there of, may feel they should not be allowed to marry, or that blacks should not be allowed to vote, or that women don???t have the right to vote, etc, etc is quite irrelevant. Thus, why they Founders wrote ???We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.??? Those rights do not change, ever, and thus why the right to free speech, the right to self defense (be it from tyranny in government or foreign), etc., are basic human rights of all people.

Try to keep up if you're going to call people out Will. When you do call a person out, call out someone who is actually opposed to your perspective. We are on the same side all along the way here.

Seriously Will ... you're trying to beat down the cheering section of the home team

As far as a Natural Right argument specific to the Second Amend, see:

Natural Rights Arguments for the Second Amendment

General stuff on human rights:

Human Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

A book that looks at the connections between natural rights, human rights, etc., designed for a philosophy class that's a good read:

Amazon.com: The Philosophy of Human Rights (Paragon Issues in Philosophy): Books: Patrick Hayden


Specific things for you to take a look at regarding 2A:

http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/article...n macro2.pdf

http://www.law.upenn.edu/academics/i...dAmendment.pdf


(1) Yes, some philosophers would differentiate between some of those terms, but many feel they are a continuum of each other if not directly interchangeable as I do.

Moral reasoning and philosophical debate ... which this is neither of ... cannot replace the reality we now exist in, nor can those debates or the works you referenced even define the situation we now live in.

Philosophers cannot intellectualize the doctrine of inalienable rights or the evolution of natural rights as time passes and the world those rights pertain to have become what we now live in. On the global scale things are much too complex for Comte or Thoreau to quantify, yet natural right remains unaltered within the fluid confines of mankind's evolution.

Small countries like where Witchblade comes from may be able to attempt to micromanage issues, but a country as large as the US cannot. The one state I live in has a larger population and a more complex economy than all of the Netherlands combined. In the end philosophy must succumb to the reality of that. Reality is the crack head, the crazed disenfranchised Asian American on a mission of mutual destruction, or an angry ex-spouse like the one in the video I posted. In that video philosophy or gun control would not have saved that woman's life. Her natural right to life was only protected by a old man with a legally licensed hand-gun.

So you see my friend our little conversation here is really just two people on the same side of the issue in a battle of wits to one up each other over frail little egos ... nothing more. Are we done yet? Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone and we can both wait until we are actually opposed to one another on an issue and have some real fun.

 

[KelJu]

Bonecrusher0wn3d*100000000

 

[Witchblade]

Bonecrusher0wn3d*100000000

What bigfoot said.


BC, my point wasn't that Holland was better than the USA. I'm willing to give you the answers to these questions though, as there's a Dutch (sorry) website called CBS (Central Bureau for Statistics) that has all these statistics verified by the government within hand's reach.

# Inhabitants in Holland: 16,000,000
# Murder and manslaughter/year: 200
% Deaths caused by fire-arm: 44 among men, 15 among women
% Deaths in criminal environment or without known motive: 2,5
% Deaths by partner/ex: 28
% Deaths motivated by money: 1,8
% Deaths in fights/arguments: 20

Suggested conclusion: you're not likely to be killed in Holland. The few ones that do get killed are often killed with a gun (illegal in Holland) and the killer is practically always an ex/partner or a friend. The motive is usually personal and the deaths are caused by a row that got out of hand.

Source: CBS

 

[Will Brink]

As much as you've endeavored to posture your self as intellectually above me I really don't feel a need to beat you Will.

As you seem to have come poorly armed and low on ammo to this battle of wits, I don???t see that happening any time soon. iMan323 made the comment ???You fail to acknowledge that the natural right was created in a vastly different society, a LOOOONG time ago??? and went on to the use a common and feeble argument about how the concept of natural rights dos not apply to today???s world. He was wrong, yet you defended him with the ???No. You're wrong. He nailed it completely??? comment.

Thus, you stepped into the contrary position. You then go on to tell me we are on the same side, and cover some psycho babble BS about my ego, etc.

So, to sum it up, as to get back on track; iMan323 feels the concepts of intrinsic rights/universal rights/natural rights/unalienable Rights (1) are simply outdated and of no use in the modern world as the concept was written ???a long time ago??? and you agreed, or seemingly agreed.

My position is/was that he does not actually understand the concept (thus his caveman example, etc) and the concepts/ideas put down by the writers of the US Const are as they state ???unalienable??? (2) and as relevant today as they ever were, if not more so.

So, that???s my position on the issue. That???s iMan323???s position, and seemingly yours as you felt he ???nailed it??? with his example/comments

That???s it in a nut shell. You can correct me where you think I have misrepresented the summery of the debate. If we are on the same side, great, but you jumped in his side, and he???s wrong. If you agree that the right of self defense is a Basic Human Right to all people regardless of time or place or when the concept war written, then we are back on the same side.

If you want to argue that the concept of natural rights is not the equivalent of Unalienable Rights - Absolute Rights - Natural Rights, etc than you should make that clear, but so far, you have not put up any defense/objection to that so far.

(1) Which to me all come under the more modern concept of Basic Human Rights

(2) The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.

(3) Unalienable Rights

 

[iMan323]

^^^You are a dinosaur, my friend. The very problem with this country is that too many people (mainly in states between CA and NY) fail to realize that the "US" is just a cog in a global economy. The ideas of a concrete nation, a single national identity are largely obsolete. You are very myopic in your perception of the world and the "country" that you live in and you keep bringing up inaplicable ideas from an era long gone.

 

[Will Brink]

^^^You are a dinosaur, my friend. The very problem with this country is that too many people (mainly in states between CA and NY) fail to realize that the "US" is just a cog in a global economy. The ideas of a concrete nation, a single national identity are largely obsolete. You are very myopic in your perception of the world and the "country" that you live in and you keep bringing up inaplicable ideas from an era long gone.

Got it. I had thought I did a acceptable job of summing up your position in my last thread, and I assume you wanted to confirm that position here. How the above has any effects on concepts such as Basic Human Rights as "inaplicable ideas from an era long gone" is known only to you I guess. It does however only confirm for me how little you understand of the concept and larger picture we have attempted to cover here.

 

[ALBOB]

True enough 99 out of 100 times, but once in a while, given enough counter info to their position, people can change their minds. Rare, but it does happen. Regardless, we still have to fight the good fight. The lives of millions of people may in fact depend on it.

While I agree with your premise and applaud your stamina, I'm afraid your percentage is woefully low. Probably closer to 999 times out of 1,000. The problem, as I see it, is that we're using facts, they're using emotion. If they were even capable of understanding reason, they'd already be on our side.

 

[ALBOB]

^^^You are a dinosaur, my friend. The very problem with this country is that too many people (mainly in states between CA and NY) fail to realize that the "US" is just a cog in a global economy. The ideas of a concrete nation, a single national identity are largely obsolete. You are very myopic in your perception of the world and the "country" that you live in and you keep bringing up inaplicable ideas from an era long gone.

Ah, and now the true eletist rears his ugly head.

The very problem with this country is that too many people (mainly the states of CA and NY) fail to realize that the "US" IS a soverign nation. And we must stay that way for our very survival. But that's okay, you sheep just stay up there in your ivory towers were you've always been. They rest of us will keep doing the real work of keeping this country safe and prosperous.

 

[Will Brink]

While I agree with your premise and applaud your stamina, I'm afraid your percentage is woefully low.

Sad but true.

Probably closer to 999 times out of 1,000.

Or 1,000,000: 1, but I am trying to be a glass half full kind guy here!

The problem, as I see it, is that we're using facts, they're using emotion.

Of course, they never let those pesky facts get in the way. Such is the life of the anti gun groups or person. As a proff of mine used to say "facts can alter emotions, but emotions can never alter facts."

If they were even capable of understanding reason, they'd already be on our side.

Well put my friend! "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper

 

[Will Brink]

Ah, and now the true eletist rears his ugly head.

It's all about a single world order don't 'ya know...

"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

 

[ALBOB]

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper

The colonel was a bit wordy for me sometimes, but he sure knew what he was talking about. He will be missed.

 

[ALBOB]

It's all about a single world order don't 'ya know...

"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Didn't Hitler have a similar quote?

Isn't it funny how when you compare the likes of Sarah Brady, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and our very own iMan323 to historical quotes, they all seem to come out on the wrong side of history? (I say it's funny, but in reality it's just sad.)

 

[Will Brink]

Didn't Hitler have a similar quote?

If it's the quote I am thinking of, it was found to be confirmed as not coming from him. Could be a different quote I am thinking of, not sure. However, one quote that is confirmed is also telling:

???History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." --- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.

Isn't it funny how when you compare the likes of Sarah Brady, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and our very own iMan323 to historical quotes, they all seem to come out on the wrong side of history? (I say it's funny, but in reality it's just sad.)

It would be just sad or even funny if it were not so dangerous. No four words have led to more deaths in all of human history than ???it can???t happen here.???

 

[ALBOB]

It would be just sad or even funny if it were not so dangerous. No four words have led to more deaths in all of human history than ???it can???t happen here.???

Good point.