If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free [W:1235:1274]*****************

[vegas giants]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Let us just assume they weren't given by our Creator. They sure as hell came from somewhere and they weren't granted by the govt.

Sure they are

 

[BretJ]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

I never said slavery was ok. Not once anywhere. That's all in your head

You essentially said if the majority decided it was not their right to free, then it was not their right to be free. In you head, that makes it OK. Majority determines rights after all. Can't have it both ways. If a = b and b=c, then a must = c

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Let us just assume they weren't given by our Creator. They sure as hell came from somewhere and they weren't granted by the govt.

If not the government - then who?????

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

And this is why we have the Second Amendment. The govt. doesn't bestow rights on us or isn't supposed to. They(federal govt.)work for us as simply an agent. In other words to do those things that individual states would find hard. For example national defense and a means of currency but not lord over us.

So who did bestow rights upon us if not a Creator nor the government?

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

So you disagree with our forefathers?

Disagree about what? The post I made stated they did NOT believe in natural rights as they described in the Declaration.

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

OTOH, the chances might be even stronger considering your advanced age. Tomorrow you might forget what your previous position was. Since your previous position is based on nothing more than your whimsical opinion, it is easy to see that there's a 50/50 chance you might then light on supporting slavery.

Perhaps another point in favor of having some sort of moral framework involved with the idea of rights.

Tomorrow is not promised to any of us - even a bright and healthy 24 year old. But just the same, I have never changed my position opposing slavery.

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

That's kind of begging the question. You're assuming it as being a universal lie because that is your position. But...it's possible for someone to tell what they believe is a lie but is actually the truth. Since you otherwise admit you can't disprove the proposition your argument is meaningless.

NO - their statement was a LIE because they routinely violated their statement every day and live lives totally opposite of what they claimed.

 

[jet57]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Wtf??

That doesn't have the slightest relationship to your previous statements. I hope you don't just walk around blurting out **** at random like that in RL.

Regulations and bans are not an infringement of your rights: no one is a libertine in this country.

 

[jet57]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Jet discuss the topic or refute the point being made, enough semantic horse****.

(chuckle)

Dude, you're hinging on your natural rights thing again.

 

[blackjack50]

If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Regulations and bans are not an infringement of your rights: no one is a libertine in this country.

Care to define infringement? Not what YOU think constitutes an infringement. What is the definition of infringement?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RF667799]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

NO - their statement was a LIE because they routinely violated their statement every day and live lives totally opposite of what they claimed.

You're still making the same error in reasoning. I likely can't help you with it if you are so obstinate.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

(chuckle)

Dude, you're hinging on your natural rights thing again.

Dude, you never effectively address it other than to cry about it. Examine what happens when a government decides to take certain rights away from its people. The rest of the world sees them as oppressive and a coercive government, not a free one. If you are going to have people be free and give consent to have certain parts of their lives directed by government, you cannot decide government is the source of their rights, instead of government being a caretaker and protector of those rights. People are free first, government exists after.

 

[RF667799]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Regulations and bans are not an infringement of your rights: no one is a libertine in this country.

Seriously, what are you babbling about? I don't know if I want to pretend that random, disjointed statements of yours constitute some sort of rational argument.

Look, the first part of your statement is such a stark absolute it can be refuted with a single example. The second part of your statement seems to hinge on some private definition of yours. So I don't know if you're just trying to distract by hand waving like some mammalian windmill or if you really don't know what the **** you're talking about.

 

[RF667799]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Tomorrow is not promised to any of us - even a bright and healthy 24 year old. But just the same, I have never changed my position opposing slavery.

Which my post didn't claim you had.

 

[vegas giants]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

You essentially said if the majority decided it was not their right to free, then it was not their right to be free. In you head, that makes it OK. Majority determines rights after all. Can't have it both ways. If a = b and b=c, then a must = c

Nope. The majority decides to go to war in Iraq and that was never ok. They had the right to go but it was never ok. It was morally wrong. Majority determines rights.....not morality

 

[RF667799]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Nope. The majority decides to go to war in Iraq and that was never ok. They had the right to go but it was never ok. It was morally wrong. Majority determines rights.....not morality

That's a good point from your perspective and I believe points to a major disconnect between those who argue in favor of natural rights vs. their opponents.

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

You're still making the same error in reasoning. I likely can't help you with it if you are so obstinate.

The error was made by the Founders who pretended to invoke natural rights but who did not themselves believe in the hollow words they wrote and signed.

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

Which my post didn't claim you had.

No it just hinted at approaching senility which would cause me to change my position. :roll:

 

[RF667799]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

No it just hinted at approaching senility which would cause me to change my position. :roll:

You were attempting to support your opinion by merely claiming you had held that opinion for a long time. Though admitting that opinions can change, it appeared you were trying to deflect from that by again referring to your own opinion as if it were somehow more valid than what you would allow from someone else. I only showed that your opinion is not as rooted in the bedrock of ultimate truth as you would like to imply.

Because you see, the larger question is how in the world you came to that opinion in the first place. I didn't say you would change your opinion. I noted a 50/50 chance. Which- given some of your arguments- must be the exact chance you had when you originally came to your opinion.

 

[RF667799]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

The error was made by the Founders who pretended to invoke natural rights but who did not themselves believe in the hollow words they wrote and signed.

That speaks to a claim of duplicity on behalf of the founders but doesn't speak to the question itself.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

A few questions:

1. If as the construct side believes that rights are purely a creation of society and granted by government, does the Bill of Rights, created by those who firmly believed in natural rights, have any actual validity?

2. It's been written here many times that "all rights have limits". If rights are purely a construct, isn't the reality that no right has any protection at all, that it can be completely eradicated by government?

3. Can a society/government create rights that are unassailable at some level? How would these be written to protect them from future infringements?

4. Looking specifically at the 2nd Amendment. One side tends to view it as unassailable ("shall not be infringed") and acknowledges that some restrictions have been upheld, while the other side sees that an no right is unlimited that "reasonable", "common sense" are allowed. When asked if these allowable restrictions could go as far as to limit firearm ownership to a sole single-shot .22 rifle, one member on the construct side responded that he didn't think that such a restriction would be allowed. If the RKBA is purely a construct of government, subject to changes imposed by government, why couldn't that limit be imposed? Why couldn't the right be completely rescinded by government, if a majority of society wished it so? On what basis could someone on the construct side defend an unassailable right to keep and bear a Crickett?

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

You were attempting to support your opinion by merely claiming you had held that opinion for a long time. Though admitting that opinions can change, it appeared you were trying to deflect from that by again referring to your own opinion as if it were somehow more valid than what you would allow from someone else. I only showed that your opinion is not as rooted in the bedrock of ultimate truth as you would like to imply.

Because you see, the larger question is how in the world you came to that opinion in the first place. I didn't say you would change your opinion. I noted a 50/50 chance. Which- given some of your arguments- must be the exact chance you had when you originally came to your opinion.

I do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Try to talk specifics instead of the broad generalities you are pretending to use to analyze me.

I stated I was against slavery. Why you dwell on this is a mystery.

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

That speaks to a claim of duplicity on behalf of the founders but doesn't speak to the question itself.

The question itself is a simple one: did natural rights give Americans the rights they have? And the answer is no. Rights come about when people want a certain behavior as a right so they pressure government to enshrine that behavior as a right. That is how it works. That is how it has always worked.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

(chuckle)

Dude, you're hinging on your natural rights thing again.

Since, in your mind, rights are purely a construct of the state:

1. When the state of California required that all "high capacity magazines" be registered with the state, did you register all of the 15 and 30 round magazines for your M1 Carbine?
2. Did you believe them when they said that thy would never use that information to confiscate them?
3. Have you turned your 15 and 30 round magazines for your M1 Carbine in to the state yet?

 

[haymarket]

Re: If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free

When asked if these allowable restrictions could go as far as to limit firearm ownership to a sole single-shot .22 rifle, one member on the construct side responded that he didn't think that such a restriction would be allowed. If the RKBA is purely a construct of government, subject to changes imposed by government, why couldn't that limit be imposed? Why couldn't the right be completely rescinded by government, if a majority of society wished it so? On what basis could someone on the construct side defend an unassailable right to keep and bear a Crickett?

Because the American people would not allow that. There is no majority support for such a proposal.