rejected as your opinion which has no basis of support.
lets stick to proof such as the beliefs of an author is a decent way of proving what their writings actually meant
I don't see why you think I'm obligated to explain it to you.
Continue to object all you like, but your position has been laid out and charred.
Actually - its not "like" anything. It merely takes the statement of the Founders in the Declaration and shows how it was a blatant lie the moment it was written. Put aside your emotions and it is very easy to see.
Yes, the person with the personal interpretation of the Constitution based on their nutbag belief that natural rights are a scam will tell me to put aside my emotions. Laughable!
When you're done re-interpreting the Constitution according to your personal conspiracy theory, let us know.
I see you failed to meet my challenge with anything but raw vitriol. As expected.
I see you failed to meet my challenge with anything but raw vitriol. As expected.
actually that is not true.
The claim made by you is that the Founders believed in natural rights and because of that would not have given the Congress the right to regulate firearms.
Is that correct?
Your challenge is stupid. Your failure to grasp natural rights is absurd. A simple scientific experiment proves them to exist.
Your harping about someone explaining it to you in a way that will bring the idea within your grasp is not material to the discussion. Your position is simple; it's nothing more than ignorance. And all the crying in the world about that ignorance will not change the fact that it is ignorance and not worthy of a position let alone a rebuttal.
His claim is that self defense and the defense of others is a natural right. The founders understood this and, in enumerating that natural right, specified that the arms utilized by a militia (reserve infantry) are not to be infringed upon.
They are only elevated to the level of a right when the government of the people declares them as protected behaviors.
Ignorance
Aside from the attacks on me because I have committed the mortal sin of not sharing your beliefs, what exactly is this "simple scientific" method you have of proving that natural rights exist.
This thread is about PROOF and EVIDENCE so lets see yours.
1. Self evidence
We can ask ourselves the question: "would I give up my right to life in order to take it away from all others". The answer to this question is always no. This establishes the self evidence of the right, regardless of any governmental authority.
We can ask any number of groups of people (with like power) this question. Every individual will answer the same as we did. This establishes, as a matter of scientific experiment, that the right to life is a natural right and not dependent upon government authority.
3. We must understand that inalienable does not equal inviolable.
A right can be violated (both justly and unjustly). This does not make the right cease to exist. Just because someone is murdered does not mean they had no right to life; clearly, they had a right to life and it was violated.
4. We must understand that this experiment and the understanding that comes with it is the basis of the US Constitution.
You mentioned a "SCIENTIFIC" method to prove the existence of natural rights. This is not a scientific method.
Survey is a scientific experiment and is implicitly a scientific method. What kind of idiocy is it to claim that a survey is not a scientific experiment.
Perhaps some knowledge of basic science would help you understand natural rights, but I'm not here to provide that to you.
You are here to back up your claims. And so far you have not even come close.
Asking your silly question to people proves nothing in the way of the existince of natural rights.
According to you and your position based upon nothing more than "I shall remain ignorant!!"
Yes, it does. It's not my fault such is beyond your grasp. Stop complaining about not being able to understand things - I can't do anything about that!
You FAILED to give us a scientific method of proving that natural rights exist outside of a belief system.
You have failed to understand that survey is a scientific experiment. I'm sorry if you don't have a grasp of basic science. I'm sure that makes understanding natural rights even more difficult. I wish you the best of luck understanding natural social objects and the scientific evidence of their existence. Good day.
News bulletin for you and bit of education: one can use scientific methodology in developing and conducting a survey of opinion about what people believe so that the results are somewhat reliable. The results tell you what people believe... at least those that you surveyed if it was done properly. That is radically and totally and completely different than using the scientific method to prove that natural rights exist independently apart from anyones self imposed belief because they want to believe it.
Your task is to prove that NATURAL RIGHTS exist outside of a belief system. And you failed to do that.
But I am overjoyed that you did it here since it underlines the necessity of providing the proper EVIDENCE and PROOF for ones claims. Yours did the opposite.
who has claimed that natural rights exist outside a belief system.
its like demanding someone prove that the catholic faith exists outside a belief system
and its not relevant to the argument.
if a bunch of Jesuits wrote a document saying the nation they founded would recognize their savior as the God of that nation, all we have to do to determine what they meant is to examine their beliefs and that would mean the Christian trinity.
whether that exists or not in the physical world means nothing
and when we evaluate the rights the founders wished to recognize in the 2A we look at the rights they believe existed prior to the constitutional convention
tl dr. what matters is those who believe in the existence of natural rights would not issue a Second Amendment that would allow all sorts of limitations on the right they wished to protect
your only response to that is to conjure up a claim that the founders were liars (in the Declaration of Independence as slaves were not included) and thus they must have lied about protecting rights that actually protected them.
I see you were unable to refute my step by step destruction of your argument in my post 147.
1- they did not believe in natural rights
2- they were liars as proven by their own actions which were 100% opposite of somebody who states there are natural rights
3 - they did give the federal government powers when the responsibility of government was upon them
You are engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy and chasing your own tail on this which is why you get nowhere and keep coming back to the exact same spot you were in previously.
again Turtle - every one of your arguments has been met head on and dismantled. You have nothing left except belief. And that give nobody any rights.
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?