Shower Thought about Guns - I don't really care that much about them - I'm not scared of them - I've shot a few - I'm just not into them - death and destruction are not appealing to me - but its weird how many people gather around the 2nd amendment when no one uses it to stand up to gov't oppression

submitted by EndlessSunflowers from (self.whatever)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Well before there was a second amendment, it wasn't a right. Something can't be inalienable and temporaneous at the same time. If I disagree with a law, then I disagree with a law. If I disagree with a constitutional amendment, then I disagree with a constitutional amendment. I'm not going to defend it just because it exists.

A Right is Inalienable; The US Constitution was felt by many to be a piece of contrition, or concession of control back to England. The "Bill of Rights", were amendments, added to, in order to get the revolutionists back on board, by literally listing out Natural Inalienable Rights.

The Bill of Rights, not the Constitution, simply enumerates these 'natural world/god given rights'. Any animal in nature has all of the Rights as we know them.

Granted, we live in a controlled world, where you can, and will die in exercising those natural world Inalienable Rights.

A little side jaunt on this: Black's Law Dictionary 3rd Edition:

Definitions:

Inalienable: Not subject to alienation; The Characteristic of those things which cannot be bought, or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e.g. liberty.

Inalienable Rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without consent of the one possessing such rights.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

A Right is Inalienable; The US Constitution was felt by many to be a piece of contrition, or concession of control back to England. The "Bill of Rights", were amendments, added to, in order to get the revolutionists back on board, by literally listing out Natural Inalienable Rights.

So by your way of thinking, if the Constitution is ammended, it can never be un-amended. I hope you can simply realize that makes no sense. Talk about a person's "rights" being beyond reproach is just rhetoric. People are deprived of these "rights" on a regular basis, for example, when someone is sent to prison.

This confusing notion of rights that you're granted by God himself is something that Americans are indoctrinated with from an early age, but most people in the world don't share in this confusion, and see things more for how they really are; defined more by what you can't do, rather than what you can.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Does a badger not have the same rights, or that of any animal?

Also, what is the difference between a right, and a privilege in your opinion?

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Does a badger not have the same rights, or that of any animal?

You've lost me.

Also, what is the difference between a right, and a privilege in your opinion?

IMO, the distinction is just rhetorical. Rights are intended to be permanent, timeless and even self evident, but ultimately they're none of those things. Legal rights are granted by a government, the same as a legal privileges. If you say you're "defending someone's rights", you're not really defending the person per se, you're defending an existing law (or constitutional provision), and never actually offering a reason as to why you're doing so. Why should someone have the right to own machines that make the taking other people's lives extremely easy?

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

You've lost me. I was explaining to you what a 'Right' is as opposed to 'privilege'. The Bill of Rights, the 1st 10, are considered to be sacred god(whatever, or none you subscribe to) given; they're simply enumerated. My usage of 'natural world rights', is simply my attempt at moving this out of the realm of 'religious' dogma, and moving it into something that can be seen.

Many of the folks named as 'Founders' made it very clear what Rights were, and where they came from by way of 'animal' comparisons.

Away from what a Right is, as it's not something temporary; let's talk guns. The 2nd Amendment is the Right to Arm yourself. Take guns away, humans have the ultimate weapon that with good nutrition, and dedication to knowledge cannot be taken away, and that's complex critical thinking skills.

To apply critical thinking skills to what you say, "Why should someone have the right to own machines that make the taking other people's lives extremely easy?", we already see adaptations with improvised munitions, and other machinery away from guns in many countries. Rights are hard to really take; especially when it's somewhat laid out by 'the law of the land/jungle'.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Away from what a Right is, as it's not something temporary;

Anything that can be changed is temporary by definition. Don't be fooled by jargon.

The 2nd Amendment is the Right to Arm yourself. Take guns away, humans have the ultimate weapon that with good nutrition, and dedication to knowledge cannot be taken away, and that's complex critical thinking skills.

To apply critical thinking skills to what you say, "Why should someone have the right to own machines that make the taking other people's lives extremely easy?", we already see adaptations with improvised munitions, and other machinery away from guns in many countries.

You offer no reason why owning guns should be a right.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Halps, a Right cannot be taken away, it can be surrendered. You say,"You offer no reason why owning guns should be a right". I can say, fine, and okay, mankind lives to restrict. But, I've made my own improvised gun, and charge in the past; myself, and others have the know how; so even with restrictions, it's still available. Can you stop me from doing that? No. It's a right, as you cannot stop anyone.....

Interestingly enough, I've got an older 3rd edition Black's law dictionary, that describes a right, as more of an observation of other living things, and through whatever means created them, their rights, are what they can do naturally, and as an action.... Weird legal definition, but that's basically it.

The 2nd Amendment covers the right to arms, and defense. This doesn't necessarily force anyone to stick to 'guns'. Look at countries where guns are banned for the most part. The UK??? They've got campaigns now to turn in knives, but what will that solve? People can still make them; the concept of a right, does precede governmental paper.

I honestly don't care at this point what you think my goal here is, I read where you wrote a right can be taken, or is 'temporary', and my only point was that it's not, and by the literal lawful definition can only be willingly surrendered....... Yet, by human will power alone, any sort of armament can be created, and used when, or as needed.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Halps, a Right cannot be taken away, it can be surrendered. You say,"You offer no reason why owning guns should be a right". I can say, fine, and okay, mankind lives to restrict. But, I've made my own improvised gun, and charge in the past; myself, and others have the know how; so even with restrictions, it's still available. Can you stop me from doing that? No. It's a right, as you cannot stop anyone.....

You can make your own illegal biological toxins, or your own illegal drugs. That you made it is irrelevant.

Interestingly enough, I've got an older 3rd edition Black's law dictionary, that describes a right, as more of an observation of other living things, and through whatever means created them, their rights, are what they can do naturally, and as an action.... Weird legal definition, but that's basically it.

OK, but what is natural about owning a killing machine, and not, say, your own nuclear weapon?

The 2nd Amendment covers the right to arms, and defense. This doesn't necessarily force anyone to stick to 'guns'. Look at countries where guns are banned for the most part. The UK??? They've got campaigns now to turn in knives, but what will that solve? People can still make them; the concept of a right, does precede governmental paper.

Guns make murder easy, easier than does a knife. Likewise, a nuclear weapon makes mass human extermination very easy, which is why you can't have one.

I honestly don't care at this point what you think my goal here is, I read where you wrote a right can be taken, or is 'temporary', and my only point was that it's not, and by the literal lawful definition can only be willingly surrendered....... Yet, by human will power alone, any sort of armament can be created, and used when, or as needed.

You say you want to protect people's rights, that's a hollow sentiment if you can't defend the "right" itself. To say that rights are self evident is to switch your brain into the "off" position.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Halps, I don't care to debate guns; I simply saw the word 'right', and a new communist 'privilege' style definition, and figured 'hey, I've got the real legal definition, I'll share'. Which is what i did, and will do again.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You said you will defend a person's rights. What if we had the right to kill brown people? We live in a day and age where people seem to get away with it, free of legal consequences. Would you support that right, were it codified, just because it becomes a "right"?

My point is that you can look up "right" in the dictionary, and pretend it's something magical, but at the end of the day it's just a tenuous construct administered by a government.