|
Any PUA discussion is banned from page 42 and onwards. |
On May 30 2014 11:02 Millitron wrote:
And yet drunk driving still kills people.
Theft is illegal. Still people are stealing stuff. Should we make it legal again? Also usual amounts of fertilizer don't kill anyone. If you're going to buy a hundred pounds of fertilizer and you're not a farmer chances are you're going to get interesting visitors. And yes second hand smoke kills a lot of people. That's exactly why many countries and many states in the US are putting stricter smoking regulations in place.
|
On May 30 2014 11:07 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 11:02 Millitron wrote:
And yet drunk driving still kills people. Theft is illegal. Still people are stealing stuff. Should we make it legal again? Also usual amounts of fertilizer don't kill anyone. If you're going to buy a hundred pounds of fertilizer and you're not a farmer chances are you're going to get interesting visitors. And yes second hand smoke kills a lot of people. That's exactly why many countries and many states in the US are putting stricter smoking regulations in place.
But none of those regulations are outright bans or serious restrictions. Its just "Don't smoke indoors" and more expensive cigarettes.
Yet there are calls for banning certain kinds of guns entirely. There are calls for magazine size limits. There are calls for bans on certain attachments on guns.
You don't see any outcry for banning menthols or vodka. You don't see any outcry for banning big packs of cigarettes or kegs of booze. You don't see any outcry for banning tobacco pipes or shot glasses.
On May 30 2014 11:06 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 10:55 Millitron wrote:
In general, if I was king of the UN or whatever and had the final say, I'd allow any weapon to any government or person. Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 11:02 Millitron wrote:
I'd prefer if they didn't. But I'd also prefer if the government didn't have it either. You know it's time to stop when you are actively contradicting yourself without even realizing it. Just stop dude.
I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away.
|
On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote:
I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away.
You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically.
And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron.
If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you?
|
Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
|
On May 30 2014 11:26 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote:
I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away. You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically. And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron. If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you?
Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature.
If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote:Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)? I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
|
On May 30 2014 11:38 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 11:26 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote:
I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away. You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically. And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron. If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you? Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature. If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you. Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote:Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)? I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people. You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't. It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be.
And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's.
But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning.
|
On May 30 2014 12:01 PassionFruit wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 11:38 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 11:26 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote:
I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away. You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically. And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron. If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you? Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature. If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you. On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote:Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)? I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people. You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't. It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government. oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be. And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's. But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning.
Exactly. The problem with this whole idea of "natural rights" is that they are neither demonstrable nor deducible. They are only what we think them to be, which exposes the biggest problem of the concept of natural rights.
I mean from a purely philosophical perspective the "is-ought gap" alone is enough to refute the idea of a natural law or at the very least make it meaningless. Because even if we could know what the natural law is (by observing nature, or some other means) we still couldn't possibly know what it ought to be.
And it's somewhat dangerous territory, because suppose for the sake of argument that the natural law as such was detrimental to human society, would we still accept it?
And is owning a gun a natural right, if so how come europeans do not have that right and seemingly disagree? Which begs the question, who is right, how can we know?
|
On May 30 2014 12:01 PassionFruit wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 11:38 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 11:26 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote:
I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away. You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically. And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron. If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you? Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature. If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you. On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote:Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)? I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people. You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't. It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government. oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be. And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's. But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning.
Allowing states to ban guns or free speech does not change the arguments made in favor of these things in say the Federalist papers or the Constitutional Convention.
If rights are only given by governments, not by nature, why do we care how North Korea or Syria treats its people? Clearly those governments aren't giving any rights.
On May 30 2014 12:13 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 12:01 PassionFruit wrote:On May 30 2014 11:38 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 11:26 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote:
I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away. You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically. And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron. If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you? Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature. If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you. On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote:Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)? I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people. You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't. It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government. oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be. And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's. But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning. Exactly. The problem with this whole idea of "natural laws" is that they are neither demonstrable nor deducable. They are only what we think them to be, which exposes the biggest problem of the concept of natural laws. I mean from a purely philosophical perspective the "is-ought gap" alone is enough to refute the idea of a natural law or at the very least make it meaningless. Because even if we could know what the natural law is (by observing nature, or some other means) we still couldn't possibly know what it ought to be. And it's somewhat dangerous territory, because suppose for the sake of argument that the natural law as such was detrimental to human society, would we still accept it? And is owning a gun a natural right, if so how come europeans do not have that right and seemingly disagree? Which begs the question, who is right, how can we know?
Define detrimental. By your own reasoning we can't know what ought to be. Ergo we also can't know what ought not to be.
|
On May 30 2014 11:38 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote:Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)? I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people. You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't. It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
So... you think laws should never change based on changes in society and advances in technology?
The UK for example (where the American version of the "right to bear arms" came from in the first place) has changed their gun policy miles since 1689, why is it so outrageous that America might change a policy that is more than 200 years old? A policy that came about right after a violent revolution.
Hell, the "right to bear arms" is so old and unclearly worded that at this point people are arguing over what exactly it means and implies and there are quite some different interpretations that are considered viable. That's usually when legislators step in to clarify, according to what is deemed necessary in todays age.
|
On May 30 2014 12:13 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 12:01 PassionFruit wrote:On May 30 2014 11:38 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 11:26 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote:
I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away. You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically. And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron. If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you? Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature. If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you. On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote:Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)? I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people. You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't. It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government. oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be. And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's. But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning. Allowing states to ban guns or free speech does not change the arguments made in favor of these things in say the Federalist papers or the Constitutional Convention. If rights are only given by governments, not by nature, why do we care how North Korea or Syria treats its people? Clearly those governments aren't giving any rights.
I would say empathy. The same reason we came up with the concept of the law in the first place. Laws as such don't exist, they are a human invention.
|
On May 30 2014 12:14 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 11:38 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote:Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)? I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people. You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't. It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government. So... you think laws should never change based on changes in society and advances in technology? The UK for example (where the American version of the "right to bear arms" came from in the first place) has changed their gun policy miles since 1689, why is it so outrageous that America might change a policy that is more than 200 years old? A policy that came about right after a violent revolution. Hell, the "right to bear arms" is so old and unclearly worded that at this point people are arguing over what exactly it means and implies and there are quite some different interpretations that are considered viable. That's usually when legislators step in to clarify, according to what is deemed necessary in todays age.
They should change when the conditions they were formed under no longer apply. The arguments made in favor of the right to bear arms in the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention still apply. Whether the UK has changed its laws is irrelevant.
It's also not very unclearly worded if you ask me. Or the Supreme Court.
On May 30 2014 12:16 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 12:13 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 12:01 PassionFruit wrote:On May 30 2014 11:38 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 11:26 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote:
I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away. You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically. And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron. If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you? Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature. If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you. On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote:Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)? I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people. You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't. It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government. oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be. And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's. But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning. Allowing states to ban guns or free speech does not change the arguments made in favor of these things in say the Federalist papers or the Constitutional Convention. If rights are only given by governments, not by nature, why do we care how North Korea or Syria treats its people? Clearly those governments aren't giving any rights. I would say empathy. The same reason we came up with the concept of the law in the first place. Laws as such don't exist, they are a human invention.
So if you feel bad that people elsewhere don't have rights, clearly their fundamental somehow. They aren't just some facet of the social contract. If they were, you'd accept that they simply have a different social contract.
|
|
|
On May 30 2014 12:13 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 12:01 PassionFruit wrote:On May 30 2014 11:38 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 11:26 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote:
I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away. You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically. And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron. If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you? Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature. If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you. On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote:Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)? I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people. You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't. It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government. oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be. And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's. But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning. Allowing states to ban guns or free speech does not change the arguments made in favor of these things in say the Federalist papers or the Constitutional Convention. If rights are only given by governments, not by nature, why do we care how North Korea or Syria treats its people? Clearly those governments aren't giving any rights. Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 12:13 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 12:01 PassionFruit wrote:On May 30 2014 11:38 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 11:26 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote:
I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away. You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically. And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron. If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you? Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature. If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you. On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote:Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)? I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people. You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't. It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government. oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be. And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's. But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning. Exactly. The problem with this whole idea of "natural laws" is that they are neither demonstrable nor deducable. They are only what we think them to be, which exposes the biggest problem of the concept of natural laws. I mean from a purely philosophical perspective the "is-ought gap" alone is enough to refute the idea of a natural law or at the very least make it meaningless. Because even if we could know what the natural law is (by observing nature, or some other means) we still couldn't possibly know what it ought to be. And it's somewhat dangerous territory, because suppose for the sake of argument that the natural law as such was detrimental to human society, would we still accept it? And is owning a gun a natural right, if so how come europeans do not have that right and seemingly disagree? Which begs the question, who is right, how can we know? Define detrimental. By your own reasoning we can't know what ought to be. Ergo we also can't know what ought not to be.
Well I personally believe in subjective morality. No objective morality, no natural laws or anything like that.
So the best way for us to come to an agreement in regards to morality would be cross-examination, discussion and debating the issues. Of course we all need some common ground (call it assumptions) to get anywhere, for example we would have to broadly agree that the well-being of people is important and that we don't want people to suffer for no reason.
The difference is that my account for morality doesn't attempt to hide it's own subjectivity and can be modified and improved, but by asserting that morality is objective, that there is a natural law, etc.. you have effectively removed yourself from that discussion.
edit: And of course the irony is that this is exactly what we are doing right now, discussing rights and morality subjectively and yet you still seem to think it's objective? If it is so objective, how come we all have a different outlook on morality and rights and how is it you think that yours is accurately reflecting reality and mine is not? Please explain, I would honestly like to know that.
On May 30 2014 12:18 Millitron wrote:
So if you feel bad that people elsewhere don't have rights, clearly their fundamental somehow. They aren't just some facet of the social contract. If they were, you'd accept that they simply have a different social contract.
I don't feel bad for europeans because they don't have a right to own guns and I don't feel good for americans because they do. So given your own argument you would have to conclude that the right to bear arms is not a natural right.... lol?
|
On May 30 2014 12:13 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 12:01 PassionFruit wrote:On May 30 2014 11:38 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 11:26 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote:
I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away. You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically. And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron. If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you? Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature. If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you. On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote:Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)? I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people. You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't. It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government. oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be. And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's. But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning. Allowing states to ban guns or free speech does not change the arguments made in favor of these things in say the Federalist papers or the Constitutional Convention. If rights are only given by governments, not by nature, why do we care how North Korea or Syria treats its people? Clearly those governments aren't giving any rights.
Sure it does. Basically it means that it's all subjective (i.e., dependent on the sovereign nation). The restriction upon and the extent of the right is all fine-tuning by man, not nature. It's a human created right wholly dependent upon the lens of the men sitting around the table. An inference made about a "natural right" is that it is some objective god-given right that is inherent to every living soul on the planet regardless of time, place, circumstance, etc...
And don't get me wrong, rights can be important, but they're never natural. It would be good to distinguish between the two. To believe in a natural right is pretty much the secular version of an act of faith.
|
On May 30 2014 10:12 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 10:08 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 09:59 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 09:48 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 09:42 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 09:32 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 09:14 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 09:09 Millitron wrote:
He saw numerous psychologists, none of whom thought he was a danger to anyone. Yeah , apparently they were wrong. That's why I'm saying mentally ill people shouldn't be handling guns. And if they were wrong this time, how is making it illegal for the mentally ill to own guns going to stop any more events like this? You just admitted they missed him, they could easily miss again. I think the whole call for gun control every time there's a shooting is kinda shortsighted. You don't hear any outcries for banning knives or cars, even though he used both in his murders. In fact, he stabbed just as many people as he shot! Comparing guns to everyday items like knifes or cars is flawed. Guns have only one purpose, shoot stuff. Statistically speaking 90 out of 100 Americans own a gun (although practically many own multiple guns, so the real number is obviously lower) but how many of these people really need guns? And sure people fall through the net, or club someone to death with a baseball bat or whatever, but just because you can't fix the whole problem doesn't mean fixing a part of it would be wrong. Knives only have one purpose. To cut stuff. Be it human flesh or food. guns dont shoot people, people do. . I'm not a gun-control advocate but I find this argument to be one of, if not the worst argument pro-gun activists could possibly make. After all, nuclear weapons don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people. Bombs don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people. I mean if you went downright philosophical on this, you would eventually come to the conclusion that NOTHING actually kills people, because a hand can't kill people on it's own, a brain can't kill people on it's own, almost always it's a combination of different things working together that results in people getting killed. But what is absolutely the case is that guns are more effective at killing people than knives, baseballs bats, etc... In the same sense that nuclear weapons are more effective at killing people than guns and I hope we can all accept that it is exactly for that reason why they should be illegal. So the question really is how effective can a tool be at killing people before we say "that's too effective, we shouldn't allow people to use such a device." If its sheer number of deaths you're worried about, alcohol is over twice as bad as guns. Alcohol is involved in 75,000 deaths per year. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/Guns are involved in about 30,000 deaths per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States No that has nothing to do with what I said. I mean given your own logic here you would have to conclude that nuclear weapons should be legal, given that there are 0 deaths per year in the US that are attributable to a nuclear weapon being used.
Exactly this. I used to be swayed by the "cars / alcohol kill more people than guns" argument, but the important thing to remember is the scale of harm involved. Are more people wounded / killed per incident of gun violence than are wounded / killed per incident of automobile violence? I don't know the statistics for this, and it's possible that they aren't, but it is still clear that the potential for mass casualties in incidents involving guns is much higher than in incidents involving automobiles.
|
On May 30 2014 12:23 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 12:13 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 12:01 PassionFruit wrote:On May 30 2014 11:38 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 11:26 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote:
I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away. You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically. And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron. If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you? Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature. If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you. On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote:Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)? I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people. You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't. It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government. oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be. And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's. But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning. Allowing states to ban guns or free speech does not change the arguments made in favor of these things in say the Federalist papers or the Constitutional Convention. If rights are only given by governments, not by nature, why do we care how North Korea or Syria treats its people? Clearly those governments aren't giving any rights. On May 30 2014 12:13 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 12:01 PassionFruit wrote:On May 30 2014 11:38 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 11:26 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote:
I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away. You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically. And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron. If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you? Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature. If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you. On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote:Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)? I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people. You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't. It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government. oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be. And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's. But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning. Exactly. The problem with this whole idea of "natural laws" is that they are neither demonstrable nor deducable. They are only what we think them to be, which exposes the biggest problem of the concept of natural laws. I mean from a purely philosophical perspective the "is-ought gap" alone is enough to refute the idea of a natural law or at the very least make it meaningless. Because even if we could know what the natural law is (by observing nature, or some other means) we still couldn't possibly know what it ought to be. And it's somewhat dangerous territory, because suppose for the sake of argument that the natural law as such was detrimental to human society, would we still accept it? And is owning a gun a natural right, if so how come europeans do not have that right and seemingly disagree? Which begs the question, who is right, how can we know? Define detrimental. By your own reasoning we can't know what ought to be. Ergo we also can't know what ought not to be. Well I personally believe in subjective morality. No objective morality, no natural laws or anything like that. So the best way for us to come to an agreement in regards to morality would be cross-examination, discussion and debating the issues. Of course we all need some common ground (call it assumptions) to get anywhere, for example we would have to broadly agree that the well-being of people is important and that we don't want people to suffer for no reason. The difference is that my account for morality doesn't attempt to hide it's own subjectivity and can be modified and improved, but by asserting that morality is objective, that there is a natural law, etc.. you have effectively removed yourself from that discussion. Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 12:18 Millitron wrote:
So if you feel bad that people elsewhere don't have rights, clearly their fundamental somehow. They aren't just some facet of the social contract. If they were, you'd accept that they simply have a different social contract. I don't feel bad for europeans because they don't have a right to own guns and I don't feel good for americans because they do. So given your own argument you would have to conclude that the right to bear arms is not a natural right.... lol?
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough  But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
On May 30 2014 12:25 PassionFruit wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 12:13 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 12:01 PassionFruit wrote:On May 30 2014 11:38 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 11:26 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote:
I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away. You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically. And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron. If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you? Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature. If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you. On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote:Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)? I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people. You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't. It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government. oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be. And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's. But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning. Allowing states to ban guns or free speech does not change the arguments made in favor of these things in say the Federalist papers or the Constitutional Convention. If rights are only given by governments, not by nature, why do we care how North Korea or Syria treats its people? Clearly those governments aren't giving any rights. Sure it does. Basically it means that it's all subjective (i.e., dependent on the sovereign nation). The restriction upon and the extent of the right is all fine-tuning by man, not nature. It's a human created right wholly dependent upon the lens of the men sitting around the table. An inference made about a "natural right" is that it is some objective god-given right that is inherent to every living soul on the planet regardless of time, place, circumstance, etc... And don't get me wrong, rights can be important, but they're never natural. It would be good to distinguish between the two. To believe in a natural right is pretty much the secular version of an act of faith.
The arguments are still valid though. Just because the document based on them did not explicitly force the states to respect them does not disprove said arguments. Its just a failure of the negotiations used to create the Constitution.
On May 30 2014 12:34 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 10:12 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 10:08 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 09:59 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 09:48 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 09:42 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 09:32 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 09:14 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 09:09 Millitron wrote:
He saw numerous psychologists, none of whom thought he was a danger to anyone. Yeah , apparently they were wrong. That's why I'm saying mentally ill people shouldn't be handling guns. And if they were wrong this time, how is making it illegal for the mentally ill to own guns going to stop any more events like this? You just admitted they missed him, they could easily miss again. I think the whole call for gun control every time there's a shooting is kinda shortsighted. You don't hear any outcries for banning knives or cars, even though he used both in his murders. In fact, he stabbed just as many people as he shot! Comparing guns to everyday items like knifes or cars is flawed. Guns have only one purpose, shoot stuff. Statistically speaking 90 out of 100 Americans own a gun (although practically many own multiple guns, so the real number is obviously lower) but how many of these people really need guns? And sure people fall through the net, or club someone to death with a baseball bat or whatever, but just because you can't fix the whole problem doesn't mean fixing a part of it would be wrong. Knives only have one purpose. To cut stuff. Be it human flesh or food. guns dont shoot people, people do. . I'm not a gun-control advocate but I find this argument to be one of, if not the worst argument pro-gun activists could possibly make. After all, nuclear weapons don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people. Bombs don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people. I mean if you went downright philosophical on this, you would eventually come to the conclusion that NOTHING actually kills people, because a hand can't kill people on it's own, a brain can't kill people on it's own, almost always it's a combination of different things working together that results in people getting killed. But what is absolutely the case is that guns are more effective at killing people than knives, baseballs bats, etc... In the same sense that nuclear weapons are more effective at killing people than guns and I hope we can all accept that it is exactly for that reason why they should be illegal. So the question really is how effective can a tool be at killing people before we say "that's too effective, we shouldn't allow people to use such a device." If its sheer number of deaths you're worried about, alcohol is over twice as bad as guns. Alcohol is involved in 75,000 deaths per year. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/Guns are involved in about 30,000 deaths per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States No that has nothing to do with what I said. I mean given your own logic here you would have to conclude that nuclear weapons should be legal, given that there are 0 deaths per year in the US that are attributable to a nuclear weapon being used. Exactly this. I used to be swayed by the "cars / alcohol kill more people than guns" argument, but the important thing to remember is the scale of harm involved. Are more people wounded / killed per incident of gun violence than are wounded / killed per incident of automobile violence? I don't know the statistics for this, and it's possible that they aren't, but it is still clear that the potential for mass casualties in incidents involving guns is much higher than in incidents involving automobiles.
They are also much rarer. Mass killings are extraordinarily rare, regardless of what the media would have you believe. More people drown in their pools.
|
On May 30 2014 12:36 Millitron wrote:First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything. If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality. Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law. (and in fact, when you pay close attention, you can already tell that it is, because the law is changed literally all the time based on how our society feels about certain topics. Call it societal empathy)
And of course there is the obvious absurdity in your argument in that the founding fathers were somehow able to conceive of the right to bear arms as a natural right, but they were such moral midgets that it didn't seem painfully obvious to them that slavery was immoral and that black people just like white people should have a natural right to be free and not slaves.
|
On May 30 2014 12:43 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 12:36 Millitron wrote:First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything. If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality. Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental. And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it. And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Many of them DID see slavery as abhorrent. You can see that in the ending of the slave trade. They couldn't outright get rid of slavery all at once because that would be political suicide. The Constitution never would've been ratified. They needed to take baby-steps. Better to affirm at least some of the rights while you continue to work towards the others rather than lose all of them by arguing over this one issue. And simply by affirming the idea of natural rights, they helped to end slavery. Surely many abolitionists were inspired by the ideals in the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention
|
On May 30 2014 12:36 Millitron wrote:
The arguments are still valid though. Just because the document based on them did not explicitly force the states to respect them does not disprove said arguments. Its just a failure of the negotiations used to create the Constitution.
lol dunno if you're just being stubborn now or just looking to troll me.
Any philosophical argument about rights inevitably becomes subjective once you dissect it down to its basic premises.
But I anticipate you'll strongly disagree.
And with that, I guess our discussion comes to an end.
The force to believe is strong with this one.
|
On May 30 2014 12:49 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 12:43 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 12:36 Millitron wrote:First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything. If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality. Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental. And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it. And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law. Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems. The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
And just gonna point out here that during world war two japanese americans had practically ALL their rights taken away from them by the government (including the right to bear arms)... so these rights must have certainly seemed very natural to them, given that all of these rights were taken away from them on a whim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
