• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When did rights became about needs?

Y

YoungConserv

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
3,083
Reaction score
601
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I have heard a lot of talk lately about who needs an assualt rifle. This has got me thinking can you imagine if this same aditude was taken to the civil rights or suffrage movement? Whar if they had said to ross parks you don't need to be able to sit at the front of the bus? Just an interesting idea let me know what you think.
 
YoungConserv said:
I have heard a lot of talk lately about who needs an assualt rifle. This has got me thinking can you imagine if this same aditude was taken to the civil rights or suffrage movement? Whar if they had said to ross parks you don't need to be able to sit at the front of the bus? Just an interesting idea let me know what you think.
Click to expand...

Lethal devices and voting rights aren't a good comparison. I want a nuclear weapon. Can I have one?
 
Deuce said:
Lethal devices and voting rights aren't a good comparison. I want a nuclear weapon. Can I have one?
Click to expand...

You can take more with a vote than you can with a gun. With a gun you can take maybe a single paycheck from me, but with a vote you may take 30% of my paycheck for my entire life. ;)
 
Deuce said:
Lethal devices and voting rights aren't a good comparison. I want a nuclear weapon. Can I have one?
Click to expand...

For millionth time nukes are not arms they are munitions! Also regardless of what the right is need has nothing to do with it. Explain to me how need has anything to do with any right.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You can take more with a vote than you can with a gun. With a gun you can take maybe a single paycheck from me, but with a vote you may take 30% of my paycheck for my entire life. ;)
Click to expand...

30% That's low
 
YoungConserv said:
I have heard a lot of talk lately about who needs an assualt rifle. This has got me thinking can you imagine if this same aditude was taken to the civil rights or suffrage movement? Whar if they had said to ross parks you don't need to be able to sit at the front of the bus? Just an interesting idea let me know what you think.
Click to expand...

Food clothing and shelter are needs, yet they are not rights - we are expected to work and to provide them for ourselves and our dependents. That has recently changed, with the "great society" income redistribution programs, such that a dependent becomes the responsibility of "the village" if born to one "unable" to support that child. The entire basis for PPACA is income redistribution, some get to pay a fixed percentage of their income and the rest must make up that difference. Thus what is a right, is now based on your "need" - if you do not "need" assistance then you must pay, not only your own way for the "right", and chip in "extra" (taxes) for others to recieve "free" what you are expected (mandated?) to work for and buy on your own. From each according to their ability (to pay taxes), to each according to their need (for free stuff). Hmm...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You can take more with a vote than you can with a gun. With a gun you can take maybe a single paycheck from me, but with a vote you may take 30% of my paycheck for my entire life. ;)
Click to expand...

No, with a gun I could take your paycheck and with a vote the government gets it and I get nothing---see how that works--so you would be wise to carry in FisherTown USA, and bring your Visa card because we don't accept American Express :cool:

I think the OP is a fair question.
 
Fisher said:
No, with a gun I could take your paycheck and with a vote the government gets it and I get nothing---see how that works--so you would be wise to carry in FisherTown USA, and bring your Visa card because we don't accept American Express :cool:

I think the OP is a fair question.
Click to expand...

Private ownership of nuclear weapons?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Private ownership of nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...

Sure, if you can convince the federal government to give you enough enriched uranium and high yield explosives to build one.
 
YoungConserv said:
For millionth time nukes are not arms they are munitions! Also regardless of what the right is need has nothing to do with it. Explain to me how need has anything to do with any right.
Click to expand...

Semantics. They are called "nuclear arms" sometimes. To the guys who wrote the 2nd amendment, "arms" meant muzzle-loaded black powder muskets. There's no single, universal definition of "arms." So you've said I can't have a nuke. Why? The US government has them, and I need to protect myself from tyranny, right?

It's not a black and white issue, is my point. You are drawing your own line regarding my right to bear arms too. So why is your line inherently superior? I totally agree that exercising a particular right isn't about "need." But do you have the right to own an assault rifle? How about a grenade launcher? Anti-aircraft missile? M1 Abrams tank?
 
Deuce said:
Semantics. They are called "nuclear arms" sometimes. To the guys who wrote the 2nd amendment, "arms" meant muzzle-loaded black powder muskets. There's no single, universal definition of "arms." So you've said I can't have a nuke. Why? The US government has them, and I need to protect myself from tyranny, right?

It's not a black and white issue, is my point. You are drawing your own line regarding my right to bear arms too. So why is your line inherently superior? I totally agree that exercising a particular right isn't about "need." But do you have the right to own an assault rifle? How about a grenade launcher? Anti-aircraft missile? M1 Abrams tank?
Click to expand...

2 of those are munitions one is a vehicle.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You can take more with a vote than you can with a gun. With a gun you can take maybe a single paycheck from me, but with a vote you may take 30% of my paycheck for my entire life. ;)
Click to expand...

I could just take your paycheck and your life, then I've taken 100% of your pay for the rest of your life!
 
Deuce said:
I could just take your paycheck and your life, then I've taken 100% of your pay for the rest of your life!
Click to expand...

No, since you killed the golden goose in the process. The successful parasite does not kill its host. ;)
 
YoungConserv said:
2 of those are munitions one is a vehicle.
Click to expand...

You're quibbling over phrasing and doing it badly. Look up the word munition, guns are munitions. Bullets are munitions. You arguing against owning any gun? You really want to keep debating semantics, or you want to go with substance? How much destructive power do I have a right to, and why is your opinion on that inherently correct while mine isn't?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
No, since you killed the golden goose in the process. The successful parasite does not kill its host. ;)
Click to expand...

Taxes would be better compared to a symbiotic relationship. Both benefit. Or do you hate ARE TROOOPS?
 
A right is the freedom to do something you choose to do without hinderance from others or your government. A need, in it's basic meaning, is an essential element of the furtherance of your life. In context, you have the right to seek the essential elements of life without hinderance from others or your government. It does not mean that you inherently have the right to those essential elements, only that you have the right to seek and acquire them.

Too often, people assume that if they are breathing, they have the right to have the essentials of life given to them rather than they having the right to seek and acquire them - there is a difference, frequently lost on some, usually the weak of mind and/or will.
 
Deuce said:
Lethal devices and voting rights aren't a good comparison. I want a nuclear weapon. Can I have one?
Click to expand...

I want to own the universe, can I have it?

See I can make stupid statements which oversimplify the argument merely to dismiss the entirety of the argument and not engage in the base question as well. Woot for not contributing.
 
Deuce said:
You're quibbling over phrasing and doing it badly. Look up the word munition, guns are munitions. Bullets are munitions. You arguing against owning any gun? You really want to keep debating semantics, or you want to go with substance? How much destructive power do I have a right to, and why is your opinion on that inherently correct while mine isn't?
Click to expand...
Your entire argument is invalid as who can afford a tank or nuke?
 
Deuce said:
Lethal devices and voting rights aren't a good comparison. I want a nuclear weapon. Can I have one?
Click to expand...

Voting rights are an instrument designed to get people involved in government while a weapon of any sort as no such connections. The only real connection between the two is that both have some sort of connection with the state, but beyond that there is nothing to be said about it.
 
Deuce said:
Taxes would be better compared to a symbiotic relationship. Both benefit. Or do you hate ARE TROOOPS?
Click to expand...

One can be for taxation, and for supporting the common defense, and yet against income redistribution, they are not the same thing. What do I get from supporting "the hood"?
 
Henrin said:
Voting rights are an instrument designed to get people involved in government while a weapon of any sort as no such connections. The only real connection between the two is that both have some sort of connection with the state, but beyond that there is nothing to be said about it.
Click to expand...

They are both Constitutional rights of the people, you are neither compelled to exercise either right nor allowed to deny others the freedom to exercise those rights. That is the connection of all individual Constitutional rights, they belong directly to the people.
 
Ikari said:
I want to own the universe, can I have it?

See I can make stupid statements which oversimplify the argument merely to dismiss the entirety of the argument and not engage in the base question as well. Woot for not contributing.
Click to expand...

Read the rest of the posts. I use the extreme example to demonstrate its not a black and white discussion. Everyone draws a line somewhere.
But people don't seem willing to acknowledge that.
YoungConserv said:
Your entire argument is invalid as who can afford a tank or nuke?
Click to expand...

Really? So I only have the right to bear arms of some arbitrary price?? I can afford a grenade launcher. Warren Buffet can afford a frigging destroyer. Why is this your argument?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
One can be for taxation, and for supporting the common defense, and yet against income redistribution, they are not the same thing. What do I get from supporting "the hood"?
Click to expand...

It was a silly comment born of another silly comment. Lets not derail the thread further. It's a gun thread, not a tax thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom