Guns and stuff... [modified]

Matthew Faithfull

I'm all for intellectual honesty. Yes, this has happened under 'European' as opposed to 'conservative' influences but that does not in itself say much about left or right wing. It is worth noting that while those campaigning for, promoting and proposing the intellectual ideas underlying these destructive changes have largely been 'left' leaning academics, those benfiting in terms of power and profit have been 'right wing' crypto faschist globalists. This is why its so important to understand the deliberatly created nexus of cooperation between the two groups. Take the Council on Foreign Relations for example, set up and funded by Wall Street Bankers to pay 'left-wing' acedemics to promote anti-american foreign policy, and yet Dick Cheney is 'proud to be a member' in private but careful not to mention it when campaigning in his own state. Something non obvious that can't easily be pigeonholed as left-wing or right-wing is going on. The best explanation that anyone has come up with is that these people are signed up to a bigger agenda that they never publicly talk about, which both wings think will get them what they want but they know the public will never support. In Europe we know this to be true for a fact because of the details of the EU that have come out over the years, both ultra-left international socialists and ultra-right corporate faschists have been led to believe that it will result in their eventual domination and effective but covert control of the entire continent. Both sides have almost certainly been lied to, along with certain religious groups like the upper eschelons of the Catholic church, to get their cooperation. The question then becomes, by whom and to what end?

Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.

soap brain

What IS a right, and why does nature give them to you?

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz

you must also believe that the unborn don't have a natural right to live.

Matthew Faithfull

Good question! Keep that up and you'll end up like me with any luck :laugh:

Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.

soap brain

I'm not saying that people shouldn't live. I'm merely saying that just because you think that nature gives you the right to live, doesn't mean it won't kill you horridly and for no reason. Nature isn't about rights. That's a human thing.

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

Stan Shannon

I'm not quite sure I agree with that. The right of self defense must certainly be considered a natural right, but, to me, that hardly translates into an unrestricted, unregulated right to own weapons.

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz

nature doesn't give us rights, it's part of who we are as human beings. it's like saying why does nature give the flower a red color? no, wrong. the flower is just red, it's just the way it is. rights exist as a universal, eternal law. Kind of like the Law of Gravity.

Stan Shannon

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

What IS a right, and why does nature give them to you?

That is a good question, and one which the philosophers who created our form of government clearly put a lot of thought into. The answer to that question clearly reflects upon one's overall view of what constitutes 'nature'.

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

soap brain

I think I've defined it as being rather different to everyone else.

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

soap brain

So, if Earth were to suddenly disappear, would the right to bear arms live on, built into the very stuff the universe is made of?

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz

i didn't say that there should be no restrictions. I'm all for licensing, etc. Licensing doesn't remove or infringe the right. For instance, I don't think individuals should necessarily be able to own a tank, at least not without paying lots of money for a license and going through training, background checks, etc.

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz

yes

soap brain

Yeah, right.

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

soap brain

I don't want your sarcasm.

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

Stan Shannon

I would only argue that any such restrictions should be at the state and local level, as the 2nd amendment clearly restricts the federal governments authority on the issue. The anti-federalists, I believe, would have argued that the state of Indiana, for example, should have the authority to maintain a militia self equipped with tanks if it felt sufficient justification for that need without the federal government having any say in it. That is the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

Stan Shannon

Ah, come on, thats some top drawer sarcasm...

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

cp9876

I'd have to agree with Ravel. In nature you have no rights, there is simply a natural order, if you cross paths with a lion you are probably lunch - period. Rights are something that are defined and conferred by a society. So they are often conferred by documents like a Bill of Rights, or a constitution. They are not natural, they are only sponsored by the society that grants them. Go outside the society (or country) and you may lose them. They can be changed, even the 2nd ammendment could be revoked by changing the constitution. Not only are rights granted by society, but society then spends an inordinate amount of time defining and redefining them - for example in recent times defining the rights of indigenous peoples, the rights of illegal immigrants, the rights of enemy combatants etc. None of these are fundamental or natural but are developed based on our humanity, justice, desire for security, current laws etc. (not necessarily in that order).

Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."

soap brain

If nature gives you the right to live, then why does it off so many people so often for no reason?! If nature gives you the right to defend yourself, then why are there so many toxins that paralyze you, so you can be eaten without defending yourself?

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

soap brain

YES! Thank you so much for saying that! :rose::rose::rose::rose:

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

Stan Shannon

Would your definition include a natural right to self defense? Does not nature afford me an inherent right to defend my own being against harm? Am I not naturally imbued with ownership of and responsibility for myself?

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization