Home Off Topic

Gun control

2456

Replies

  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 9,524 Admiral
    edited March 25 #32
    Rights are a concept.  Rights are whatever a social construct says they are.  Meaning rights are an opinion, not fact.  
    #Lead beakerhead specialist 

    "Soul of the mind, key to life's ether. Soul of the lost, withdrawn from its vessel. Let strength be granted, so the world might be mended. So the world might be mended."
  • MelbourneMarkMelbourneMark Posts: 2,808 Captain
    Our founding fathers specifically said we are born with natural rights, endowed by our creator.
      "We do not claim these charters under a king or legislature, but under the king of kings" -Jefferson


    Thats fine if you do not believe in a creator.  Our founding fathers believed that when we are born, we have natural rights.  NOT by any govt entity.     The govt created was supposed to protect those natural rights. 

    I do not see how this is a hard concept to grasp.  This idea of freedom should be universal.   Basically, you do your thing, and let others do their thing, so long as what thing they do does not prohibit others natural rights.
    hint: slavery, indentured servitude, killing others, etc violates others natural rights..
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 14,402 AG
     Our Rights are an American opinion, based on our laws, because of our moral beliefs.
        
         We should destroy that.
  • MelbourneMarkMelbourneMark Posts: 2,808 Captain
    again, another of my famous observations:
    my anecdotal experience with folks; those who believe in a higher being tend to believe in natural rights, where as those who do not believe in a higher being, tend to think the natural rights come from a govt entity.(i.e. another "higher being")

    I do know some libertarian-anarcho types who believe in neither a higher being, nor a large govt entity.  And, I know some very religious types(usually catholics or jew-ish) who believe in large govt powers.  But, these are a minority of my experience.
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 9,524 Admiral
    Our founding fathers specifically said we are born with natural rights, endowed by our creator.
      "We do not claim these charters under a king or legislature, but under the king of kings" -Jefferson


    Thats fine if you do not believe in a creator.  Our founding fathers believed that when we are born, we have natural rights.  NOT by any govt entity.     The govt created was supposed to protect those natural rights. 

    I do not see how this is a hard concept to grasp.  This idea of freedom should be universal.   Basically, you do your thing, and let others do their thing, so long as what thing they do does not prohibit others natural rights.
    hint: slavery, indentured servitude, killing others, etc violates others natural rights..
    I don't have an issue with our rights, nor am I arguing anything should be changed.  But as you stated in your post, our founding fathers "believed" in a concept.  Meaning it is an opinion, which is all I said.  I think we are saying the same thing, just in different terms.  

    #Lead beakerhead specialist 

    "Soul of the mind, key to life's ether. Soul of the lost, withdrawn from its vessel. Let strength be granted, so the world might be mended. So the world might be mended."
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 14,402 AG
    Letting people have rights an freedom just makes them all uppity. 
       We need to crush that as soon as possible.
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 37,005 AG
    edited March 25 #38
    cadman said:
    Gardawg said:
    No one is born with rights.  Our rights are secured by our government. It is one of the main reasons for government.  Does the phrase "provide for the common defense" ring a bell? Hint ... it ain't from Das Kapital. 

    Do you think a Mexican cartel cares about your natural born rights?  You gonna fight them off if they target you?

    Our legal system is based on English Common Law.   That and the philosophy of government by John Locke.








    The Founders did not agree with you. They stated we were born with inalienable rights (definition to follow) and the purpose of government is to protect those rights.

    Inalienable Rights:
    "Personal rights held by an individual which are not bestowed by law, custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to another person, are referred to as “inalienable rights.” The U.S. Constitution recognized that certain universal rights cannot be taken away by legislation, as they are beyond the control of a government, being naturally given to every individual at birth, and that these rights are retained throughout life."
    None of the rights in the amendments are inalienable rights. 
    The Declaration of Independence declared life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be inalienable rights. The constitution was written to protect these basic inalienable rights. The 2nd amendment ensures the government can not take your inalienable rights away. 
    You are correct except except for the 2nd amendment and all other amendments. the forefathers did not include them originally. they were not part of the original constitution or any of your alienable rights. 

    The amendments were added as protection for the various states which requested them. The state wanted the amendments as protection against overreaching federal government and ensure the states had rights, not the individual people. That is why many court decisions differentiate between a states ability to regulate certain activities and the federal governments. 

     If the forefathers had seen any of the rights in the amendments as inalienable, they would have put them in the original document. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are your inalienable rights as protected in the body of the constitution. The basic rights as a human being. 

    This is the preamble to the first ten amendments;

    Congress of the United States
    begun and held at the City of New-York, on
    Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

    RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

    ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • Parker boyParker boy Posts: 333 Deckhand
    kellercl said:
    Gardawg said:
    No one is born with rights.  Our rights are secured by our government. It is one of the main reasons for government.  Does the phrase "provide for the common defense" ring a bell? Hint ... it ain't from Das Kapital. 

    Do you think a Mexican cartel cares about your natural born rights?  You gonna fight them off if they target you?

    Our legal system is based on English Common Law.   That and the philosophy of government by John Locke.








    The Founders did not agree with you. They stated we were born with inalienable rights (definition to follow) and the purpose of government is to protect those rights.

    Inalienable Rights:
    "Personal rights held by an individual which are not bestowed by law, custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to another person, are referred to as “inalienable rights.” The U.S. Constitution recognized that certain universal rights cannot be taken away by legislation, as they are beyond the control of a government, being naturally given to every individual at birth, and that these rights are retained throughout life."
    And for the sake of argument if another country invaded and took over....  do they have to keep our rights or can they take them away?

    The answer is they can take them away.  Which means we are granted these rights, not born with them.  
    Apples and oranges. Our founders created this country based on their belief we as citizens have rights. That is what they fought for and the 2nd amendment is so we as free people have the ability to fight to retain them whether the attempt to infringe them is by another country or our own government.
  • GardawgGardawg The Sportfishing Capital Of The WorldPosts: 12,306 AG
    Please enumerate the natural rights you were born with  if you encounter a hungry grizzly bear while out for a stroll.  I don't think that bear will respect your right to life. 

    You only have the defenses with which you were born.
    "Forgiveness is a strange thing. It can be sometimes easier to forgive our enemies than our friends. It can be hardest of all to forgive people we love." Fred Rogers  
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 9,524 Admiral
    edited March 25 #41
    kellercl said:
    Gardawg said:
    No one is born with rights.  Our rights are secured by our government. It is one of the main reasons for government.  Does the phrase "provide for the common defense" ring a bell? Hint ... it ain't from Das Kapital. 

    Do you think a Mexican cartel cares about your natural born rights?  You gonna fight them off if they target you?

    Our legal system is based on English Common Law.   That and the philosophy of government by John Locke.








    The Founders did not agree with you. They stated we were born with inalienable rights (definition to follow) and the purpose of government is to protect those rights.

    Inalienable Rights:
    "Personal rights held by an individual which are not bestowed by law, custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to another person, are referred to as “inalienable rights.” The U.S. Constitution recognized that certain universal rights cannot be taken away by legislation, as they are beyond the control of a government, being naturally given to every individual at birth, and that these rights are retained throughout life."
    And for the sake of argument if another country invaded and took over....  do they have to keep our rights or can they take them away?

    The answer is they can take them away.  Which means we are granted these rights, not born with them.  
    Apples and oranges. Our founders created this country based on their belief we as citizens have rights. That is what they fought for and the 2nd amendment is so we as free people have the ability to fight to retain them whether the attempt to infringe them is by another country or our own government.
    Correct.  Based on belief, which is nothing more than an opinion.  We weren't born with said rights, we socially constructed the belief in said rights and as a community delivered those rights to the people.  
    #Lead beakerhead specialist 

    "Soul of the mind, key to life's ether. Soul of the lost, withdrawn from its vessel. Let strength be granted, so the world might be mended. So the world might be mended."
  • GardawgGardawg The Sportfishing Capital Of The WorldPosts: 12,306 AG
    They believed we deserved rights that King George III would not grant.

    No taxation with out representation.  Our fight was about money. Surprise, surprise!!

    If the British had not been so venal then the colonies could have negotiated a settlement and avoided a war.  

    "Forgiveness is a strange thing. It can be sometimes easier to forgive our enemies than our friends. It can be hardest of all to forgive people we love." Fred Rogers  
  • MelbourneMarkMelbourneMark Posts: 2,808 Captain
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    Gardawg said:
    No one is born with rights.  Our rights are secured by our government. It is one of the main reasons for government.  Does the phrase "provide for the common defense" ring a bell? Hint ... it ain't from Das Kapital. 

    Do you think a Mexican cartel cares about your natural born rights?  You gonna fight them off if they target you?

    Our legal system is based on English Common Law.   That and the philosophy of government by John Locke.








    The Founders did not agree with you. They stated we were born with inalienable rights (definition to follow) and the purpose of government is to protect those rights.

    Inalienable Rights:
    "Personal rights held by an individual which are not bestowed by law, custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to another person, are referred to as “inalienable rights.” The U.S. Constitution recognized that certain universal rights cannot be taken away by legislation, as they are beyond the control of a government, being naturally given to every individual at birth, and that these rights are retained throughout life."
    And for the sake of argument if another country invaded and took over....  do they have to keep our rights or can they take them away?

    The answer is they can take them away.  Which means we are granted these rights, not born with them.  
    Apples and oranges. Our founders created this country based on their belief we as citizens have rights. That is what they fought for and the 2nd amendment is so we as free people have the ability to fight to retain them whether the attempt to infringe them is by another country or our own government.
    Correct.  Based on belief, which is nothing more than an opinion.  We weren't born with said rights, we socially constructed the belief in said rights and as a community delivered those rights to the people.  

    I think the founders at the time, as well as what I am trying to imply here: is that the founding fathers were stating that natural rights are... well natural. 

    I get your opinion/belief point; but at some point someone had to stand up and speak or write that these are natural rights. 

    Basically, someone had to speak their "opinion" in order for the natural rights to be even brought into any conversation. 

    I guess it would be similar to the scientific method for things we take for granted now.. gravity was an opinion/belief at some point until it could be proven.  But, someone had to have an opinion on it first. 

  • GardawgGardawg The Sportfishing Capital Of The WorldPosts: 12,306 AG
    What happened to the 'natural rights' of the folk who were brought here against their will?

    Seems to me  like the opinions of the founders were formed more out of convenience than conviction.
    "Forgiveness is a strange thing. It can be sometimes easier to forgive our enemies than our friends. It can be hardest of all to forgive people we love." Fred Rogers  
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 14,402 AG
    Gardawg said:
    What happened to the 'natural rights' of the folk who were brought here against their will?

    Seems to me  like the opinions of the founders were formed more out of convenience than conviction.
    You mean are they free to make a good life or destroy their lives as they want in 2021? Yes.
  • TheMelManTheMelMan SoWeGAPosts: 761 Officer
    Gardawg said:
    Please enumerate the natural rights you were born with  if you encounter a hungry grizzly bear while out for a stroll.  I don't think that bear will respect your right to life. 

    You only have the defenses with which you were born.
    I was born with my hands for instance.   If a grizzly bear attacks me and eats my hand it doesn't mean it wasn't my hand.  It means the grizzly took my hand.   It is/was still MY hand.  

    My right to freedom is give me by God.  If the Chinese take my freedom away, it doesn't necessarily follow that it wasn't mine, just that it was taken.
    GOOGLE:  Helping Totalitarian Governments Control their populations with Surveillance,  Suppression of information, speech and ideas, now bringing Totalitarian ideas to the US.   Thanks but no thanks!
  • GardawgGardawg The Sportfishing Capital Of The WorldPosts: 12,306 AG
    So if someone or something takes away your  life how are you still free to live?

    If you have the right to have a hand and the bear ate it then you didn't really have that right. 

    or left if he ate both.  





    "Forgiveness is a strange thing. It can be sometimes easier to forgive our enemies than our friends. It can be hardest of all to forgive people we love." Fred Rogers  
  • MelbourneMarkMelbourneMark Posts: 2,808 Captain
    Gardawg said:
    What happened to the 'natural rights' of the folk who were brought here against their will?

    Seems to me  like the opinions of the founders were formed more out of convenience than conviction.
    Their natural rights were violated. Doesn't mean it was right then nor when it happens today.
  • MelbourneMarkMelbourneMark Posts: 2,808 Captain
    Natural rights do not equal a perfect world/country. Humans are not perfect and do horrible things to each other
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 9,524 Admiral
    edited March 25 #50
    Again, I'm not against the 2nd amendment, but I don't follow the logic that rights are natural and cover man made objects.  
    #Lead beakerhead specialist 

    "Soul of the mind, key to life's ether. Soul of the lost, withdrawn from its vessel. Let strength be granted, so the world might be mended. So the world might be mended."
  • jetmech2jetmech2 Panhandle Posts: 1,205 Officer
    The Founders also believed that women shouldn't vote and that men could be owned by other men, so there's that. I guess their rights weren't so inalienable.
    As usual you are wrong again. 
     Your civics ignorance is showing. 
  • jetmech2jetmech2 Panhandle Posts: 1,205 Officer
    kellercl said:
    Gardawg said:
    No one is born with rights.  Our rights are secured by our government. It is one of the main reasons for government.  Does the phrase "provide for the common defense" ring a bell? Hint ... it ain't from Das Kapital. 

    Do you think a Mexican cartel cares about your natural born rights?  You gonna fight them off if they target you?

    Our legal system is based on English Common Law.   That and the philosophy of government by John Locke.








    The Founders did not agree with you. They stated we were born with inalienable rights (definition to follow) and the purpose of government is to protect those rights.

    Inalienable Rights:
    "Personal rights held by an individual which are not bestowed by law, custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to another person, are referred to as “inalienable rights.” The U.S. Constitution recognized that certain universal rights cannot be taken away by legislation, as they are beyond the control of a government, being naturally given to every individual at birth, and that these rights are retained throughout life."
    And for the sake of argument if another country invaded and took over....  do they have to keep our rights or can they take them away?

    The answer is they can take them away.  Which means we are granted these rights, not born with them.  
    So you’re angling for a invasion?
  • jetmech2jetmech2 Panhandle Posts: 1,205 Officer
    cadman said:
    cadman said:
    Gardawg said:
    No one is born with rights.  Our rights are secured by our government. It is one of the main reasons for government.  Does the phrase "provide for the common defense" ring a bell? Hint ... it ain't from Das Kapital. 

    Do you think a Mexican cartel cares about your natural born rights?  You gonna fight them off if they target you?

    Our legal system is based on English Common Law.   That and the philosophy of government by John Locke.








    The Founders did not agree with you. They stated we were born with inalienable rights (definition to follow) and the purpose of government is to protect those rights.

    Inalienable Rights:
    "Personal rights held by an individual which are not bestowed by law, custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to another person, are referred to as “inalienable rights.” The U.S. Constitution recognized that certain universal rights cannot be taken away by legislation, as they are beyond the control of a government, being naturally given to every individual at birth, and that these rights are retained throughout life."
    None of the rights in the amendments are inalienable rights. 
    The Declaration of Independence declared life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be inalienable rights. The constitution was written to protect these basic inalienable rights. The 2nd amendment ensures the government can not take your inalienable rights away. 
    You are correct except except for the 2nd amendment and all other amendments. the forefathers did not include them originally. they were not part of the original constitution or any of your alienable rights. 

    The amendments were added as protection for the various states which requested them. The state wanted the amendments as protection against overreaching federal government and ensure the states had rights, not the individual people. That is why many court decisions differentiate between a states ability to regulate certain activities and the federal governments. 

     If the forefathers had seen any of the rights in the amendments as inalienable, they would have put them in the original document. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are your inalienable rights as protected in the body of the constitution. The basic rights as a human being. 

    This is the preamble to the first ten amendments;

    Congress of the United States
    begun and held at the City of New-York, on
    Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

    RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

    ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

    The constitution was a work in progress. I believe it was three and a half years between the ratification of the constitution until the ratification of the bill of rights. There was a lot of negotiations between the states to come to a agreement. 
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 9,524 Admiral
    edited March 25 #54
    jetmech2 said:
    The Founders also believed that women shouldn't vote and that men could be owned by other men, so there's that. I guess their rights weren't so inalienable.
    As usual you are wrong again. 
     Your civics ignorance is showing. 
    How do you figure he is wrong?  Originally only white men were allowed to vote, and even still I think you had to own property as well.  Plus there was a period of time when there was a poll tax (e.g. had to pay to vote).  Historically voting absolutely was not a right for all.  It was a selective right for some.    
    #Lead beakerhead specialist 

    "Soul of the mind, key to life's ether. Soul of the lost, withdrawn from its vessel. Let strength be granted, so the world might be mended. So the world might be mended."
  • MelbourneMarkMelbourneMark Posts: 2,808 Captain
    kellercl said:
    Again, I'm not against the 2nd amendment, but I don't follow the logic that rights are natural and cover man made objects.  

    obviously, this topic in off-topic went a little off-topic.  The natural rights thing was mentioned, as some here (myself) believe they are what a person is born with, rather than granted by a govt entity. 

    As for guns (man made objects); I can see the possible arguments within natural rights.  I would like to think that any weapon (sharpened stick, arrow or gun) would be allowed for the right of self-defense in order to preserve ones own life or liberty.

    Throughout history people have been able to fight off others (foreign or domestic) with similar weapons as the enemies.  Thats what the founders were trying to enshrine in our documents.   We have all witnessed other countries fall in recent years, and one of the first things the enemy does is restrict the ability to fight back. Venezuela comes to mind as the most recent example.


    But lets be honest:
    there are many people who have used mass shootings as an example because they want to limit, restrict, or disarm other citizens. (many live in relative safety vs those in crime ridden areas who would like protection)
    Many more do not do research and listen to the talking heads stating that the "weapons of war" are evil.  Despite the overwhelming stats stating that more people are killed every year by handguns than any rifles. 
    Any new law will not make a dent in the death rate.  Over half of the folks will still commit suicide, and the remaining ~90% will still use handguns during criminal activity.  Those are the stats for decades.  Mass murders with rifles, as horrible as they are, are a small fraction of the yearly deaths by guns.

    I would personally like solution(s) that that would help stop crazies from shooting up places:
    1) The young man in GA bought a gun that day, and a waiting period may helped him cool off?
    2) perhaps an expanded fbi contact list of possible people who are crazy?
    3) perhaps expand mental health clinics overall?  heck, our country is printing money like crazy might as well do something more useful than spending it on illegals

  • dogman18dogman18 Posts: 515 Officer
    What happened to "promote the common good"? 
    Best define "Good" first. Who's good? What or who is "common"? I believe that both  have evolved from inception to today and we are fortunate that better heads prevailed and the Constitution was written as  living evolving document. It would be interesting to name modern politicians who could construct a new Constitution for us.  With todays divisions and short sightedness we'd be looking at a blank piece of paper ad infinitum. 
    Random thoughts from an Octogenarian. D18
    “There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.”
    ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
  • RennieRaeRennieRae Posts: 767 Officer
    MelbourneMark said:
    I would personally like solution(s) that that would help stop crazies from shooting up places:

    1) The young man in GA bought a gun that day, and a waiting period may helped him cool off?
    2) perhaps an expanded fbi contact list of possible people who are crazy?
    3) perhaps expand mental health clinics overall?  heck, our country is printing money like crazy might as well do something more useful than spending it on illegals

    While I agree with most all of the things you said MM, the scary part of it to me is WHO gets to define crazy/mental health issues that would potentially prohibit gun ownership?  If the answer is Nancy Pelosi (or others of the far left side of govt.) you can bet it will be used as a political tool.  
    Bob 

    17 ft. Ankona Native with 40 hp Suzuki 4 stroke 
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 14,402 AG
    kellercl said:
    Again, I'm not against the 2nd amendment, but I don't follow the logic that rights are natural and cover man made objects.  
    So, we could say you hate the idea of being able to own property?
  • TheMelManTheMelMan SoWeGAPosts: 761 Officer
    Gardawg said:
    So if someone or something takes away your  life how are you still free to live?

    If you have the right to have a hand and the bear ate it then you didn't really have that right. 

    or left if he ate both.  





     :)   When the guys were putting together the laws they wanted to live under back in the old days they had just finished dealing with an authoritarian government that was abusing them, stealing their stuff and pushing them around in a most disageeable fashion.  
    They wanted laws based on freedom, thus their gravitation toward the belief men were born equal and free and that was God's plan for them.  Thus they established a government based on this belief so that there could be laws to protect the populace against the government, ie ruling class , ie Swamp, or the eventual evolution into the Swamp. 
     
    That is why it is illegal for the government to come kill me just because I won't wear a mask in publix even though they are the "authority" .   I have the right of life , liberty and pursuit of happiness per the Constitution , the document we all agreed to live under and protect against traitors within and without.................

    That's why we have a 2nd amendment.  So the government can't power grab the populace and put us back into slavery or bondage.  The Government is to serve us not themselves, that is why we should have term limits and everyone should be armed.   That's why there was no standing army initially ............the plan was government small, states and people big.............

    GOOGLE:  Helping Totalitarian Governments Control their populations with Surveillance,  Suppression of information, speech and ideas, now bringing Totalitarian ideas to the US.   Thanks but no thanks!
  • louislouis Posts: 66 Deckhand
    Contrary to somes beleif.  Our Forfathers did not pen the 2nd ammendment so we the people could have a squirrel rifle.  It was to protect our freedom from an oppressive government.  All I have to say about that.  L
  • dragon baitdragon bait Posts: 9,889 Admiral
    edited March 26 #61
    I always chuckle when I hear how Bubba, Billy Bob and their arsenal are going to stand up to a tyrannical government 
    ( see Ruby Ridge)




Sign In or Register to comment.