I've a couple of philosophical issues to discuss regarding rights, and a previous correspondent here doesn't wish to participate. Obviously, this is a open forum, and anyone could join in to our conversation, but I thought I'd start a new to so as not to exclude anyone due to undue politeness.
Let's propose a citizen in a country who is enjoying a right. One fine day part of the government tells him, sorry, we've decided that you no longer have that right, as rights are only grants by the government - we don't believe in natural rights so we're perfectly empowered to take this one away.
However, a second part of the government says, no, natural rights actually do exist, and according to a long standing agreement with our citizens, you don't have the power to take away natural rights.
Does the citizen indeed retain the right?
Part two. Whether one believes in natural rights, divine rights or rights purely as a structure of governmental permission, we know from various writings that the Framers did indeed believe in inherent rights, disagreeing somewhat as to whether the origin was natural or divine in origin, but agreeing that the rights did actually exist. On that basis the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights was create and adopted, and the Constitution and BOR have been the basis for our government for going on 250 years. Every single legislator that joins the government swears an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution. Given that the Constitution and BOR are entirely dependent upon the existence of natural rights, and the government consists of people who either believe this to be true, or lied during their oath, can any action of anyone in the government that seeks to restrict a right be considered an infringement on a natural right rather than the government simply withdrawing recognition of a granted right, as the government only has the power enumerated in the Constitution, which makes no mention of a power to remove a granted right?
:2wave:
I've read plenty, and your belief is not universal.
Very relevant. Libertarians are hard right-wingers.
Read
The evidence says that the Libertarian party is a hard right-wing group of people who are no longer enamored with the Republicans.
Read more; it'll help.
Didn't you just get done saying you couldn't describe why slavery is wrong outside of your own, personal willful belief?
I have to say I don't much care for that idea. I mean...damn...you might change your mind tomorrow and decide that slavery is okay just as arbitrarily as you decided it was wrong today.
Now myself, I think it would be better to....oh....I dunno....maybe have a normative framework with which to approach such questions.
Not by law they didn't, but as we all know, I assume we all know this, the law is not infallible.
Sure you can. I can claim that I don't keep a pink elephant in my backyard. How would I prove it? I would ask you to come to my back yard and you would see that there is no pink elephant. So there you have it, I just proved that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist.
No, the fact of the matter is that the people in power back then weren't being fair.That's a cop out answer. If what you say is true, blacks would have instantly had what everybody else had; but we both know that what you're peddling is not true.
Paranoid nonsense that is baseless and has not one iota of truth to back it up.
"People like to point out countries such as the UK and Australia and about how such countries have a low crime rate and are very restrictive with guns and that its because of having heavy gun restrictions that's why they have a low crime rate. "
It's been a while since I've diagrammed a sentence, so perhaps my skills are a little rusty. Can you give this one a go?
My point is that if the government has a registry of who owns what in terms of guns, if they were to pass an unconstitutional ban on firearms, and a ban on firearms would be unconstitutional, they would be able to seize all the guns since they know who has what. Just as they did in Australia and the UK.
Paranoid nonsense that is baseless and has not one iota of truth to back it up.
Tons of people in the gun control crowd.
So enlighten me. Of the opposition doesn't want to ban guns to stop crime, why do they want to ban guns?
But again tell me, how would somebody go about proving that there are NOT three inch high blue monkeys made from flame that play a version of basketball underneath the surface of Uranus? You have the entire evening and may use any resources available to you.
Bull**** and weak response. Name them, not that you can. This just makes it more than obvious that you have done nothing more than make a stupid claim and then blame the gun control crowd for it.
Look up Cenk Uygur of The Young Turds, err Turks.
Seeing as it s not my claim or even something i would argue for then, no, i decline to give any oxygen to your idiotic argument.
Are you talking about currently available resources or resources that might be available in the future? To this date the furthest we've sent man into space is to the moon and even that is debated as there are people who claim the moon landing is fake but since this debate is not about whether or not the moon landing was legit I am not going to get into that. Anyway, Uranus is 9.2 AUs from the
Sun. (AU stands for Astronomical Unit which is the distance from the Earth to the Sun.) So, even when Uranus is closest to Earth due to the orbit of the two planets you are looking at a distance of 8.2 AUs. It takes light from the Sun approx. 8 minutes to reach Earth so even if we were to go at light speed it would take us about an hour and five minutes to get to Uranus if you do the math. Since we have not produced any spacecraft that go anywhere near light speed with our current technology it would take much longer. You said I could use any resources so I will use the resources of the entire Earth's economy and build a spacecraft that can go the distance from Earth to Uranus and that can transport people and that can provide all the necessities for people to live for the days or weeks or months it would take to get there and back. Also, the spacecraft would be engineered to be able to go under the surface of Uranus. I would then fly you, or whoever Im trying to prove it to, to Uranus and fly below the surface and observe and if indeed there aren't the monkeys you speak of than that would prove that they're not there. So there you have it.
You have the entire evening and may use any resources you can obtain.
Any resources I can obtain? In that case I cannot prove that to you since I don't have the resources to get to Uranus.
But the fact of the matter is, I don't care to prove or disprove whether or not there are those monkeys you describe on Uranus. If you want to believe in them that's your choice.
on the great scheme of things- the government doesn't have the time or the resources to even enforce violations of the current background check now. less than one tenth of one percent of felons who lie on form 4473 have been prosecuted for what is almost a strict liability felony (claiming under oath you aren't a felon when you are). so the main purpose of liberals pushing Universal background checks is to hassle people who follow even stupid laws-rather than trying to actually enforce laws against criminals. Its also to create a demand among the low wattage voters who WANT SOMETHING DONE, to demand registration because anyone who understands this issue, understands that you cannot enforce a private sale BGC law without complete registration of all legally owned guns currently
Are you afraid your eccentric neighbor is going to shoot you?
I never claimed to believe in them. And you are intentionally missing the point.... which is .... can you prove that natural rights exist?
I am about to sell a car. I or the guy who buys it may have to pay sales tax. We could cheat on the price, much like someone could cheat on any gun sale requirement. Big deal. By your logic we should not regulate anything, because people will cheat. I disagree, and in fact have no problem with guns being registered. Get all the guns you want from dealers who have to record the sale and do checks. Price of doing business. Ain’t gonna happen. As noted earlier, many French eat snails, many American eat guns. I don’t understand either practice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?