All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons
12/21/2012 9:43 PM
Yep, if the solution landed in your lap, and said "I'm the solution", you still wouldn't know it.
12/21/2012 10:57 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/21/2012 8:09:00 PM (view original):
Since I'm not fond of the soliloquy, I just kinda skimmed that.  Nonetheless, you have no right when I choose to take it away.  You can't vote, you can't drink, you can't speak freely and you can't own a gun, if someone takes it away.  You'll have to fight for that right.   Figure out your fight.  And consider if you'll have to fight again for the same, or a different, right tomorrow.
I understand, thinking isn't a strong point.

The only logical conclusion to the above is that there are no such thing as rights, merely privileges being granted. Thus one can not "fight" for something that does not exist. Ergo, the claim becomes nonsensical.

In fact, all of these "rights" alluded to above are positive rights as juxtaposed to negative rights (i.e. not being harmed).

Assuming rights do exist the question therefore becomes when in conflict, what should a society value positive rights or negative rights?
12/22/2012 11:36 AM
Yes, I believe you've been granted "rights" and, as it's obvious from this discussion, they can be taken away.    So, in effect, they aren't really "rights", they are indeed privileges.    But, rather than attempt to convince anyone of this, we'll just call them "rights" for argument's sake.

You are never guaranteed of not being harmed.  Not sure why you think you are.
12/22/2012 2:42 PM (edited)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Bill of Rights:

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Right to keep and bear arms

Conditions for quarters of soldiers

Right of search and seizure regulated

Provisons concerning prosecution

Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.

Right to a trial by jury

Excessive bail, cruel punishment

Rule of construction of Constitution

Rights of the States under Constitution

12/22/2012 2:41 PM
"No man can well doubt the propriety of placing a president of the United States under the most solemn obligations to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution."
Joseph Story (1779-1845) U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1811-1845. His Dad was one of the Sons of Liberty who took part in the Boston Tea Party and fought at Lexington & Concord

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."
William Jefferson Clinton, August 12, 1993

"Society's needs come before the individual's needs."
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) German Nazi Dictator


12/22/2012 4:28 PM
Posted by mirky on 12/22/2012 2:42:00 PM (view original):
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Bill of Rights:

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Right to keep and bear arms

Conditions for quarters of soldiers

Right of search and seizure regulated

Provisons concerning prosecution

Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.

Right to a trial by jury

Excessive bail, cruel punishment

Rule of construction of Constitution

Rights of the States under Constitution

Um, no.  Not quite.

You're selectively mixing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution's Bill of Rights.  Two separate documents.  The "inalienable rights" clause of the Declaration of Independence does not necessarily apply to the "rights" in the Bill of Rights.


12/22/2012 4:49 PM
Um, yes. Quite.
They are 2 seperate documents that go together. Bill of Rights to clarify constitution. Learn your history dude.
LIberal: http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/bill-rights-brief-history
Conservative: http://theconservativeactivist.com/info/bill_of_rights.html
12/23/2012 7:48 AM (edited)
Yes, the Bill of Rights "clarifies" the Constitution.  It does not "clarify" the Declaration of Independence.

Two different documents, each with a separate and distinct purpose, written 11 years apart.

Learn and understand your history, dude.

12/23/2012 9:32 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/22/2012 11:36:00 AM (view original):
Yes, I believe you've been granted "rights" and, as it's obvious from this discussion, they can be taken away.    So, in effect, they aren't really "rights", they are indeed privileges.    But, rather than attempt to convince anyone of this, we'll just call them "rights" for argument's sake.

You are never guaranteed of not being harmed.  Not sure why you think you are.
Then we obfuscate and end up conflating the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution as we see right after our posts. Language has meaning. We've seen the problem manifest in this thread over what defines a certain gun as being an assault weapon.

BTW, I do believe in rights, but I only believe in negative rights, i.e. the right not to be shot, mugged, raped. What you are calling rights I'd clarify as positive rights, aka privileges.

I do not believe that bad things can not happen, I, do, however, believe that certain mind-sets (not being judgmental here) are a tad paranoid and expect bad things to occur. Or, they are it is my right to do X and by gosh I'm going to do it. Look at the walking a dog in an area populated by boars as the reason justifying a need to pack heat. My response would be to walk the dog elsewhere.

The only other issue I want to go back to is the solvency debate as to banning certain guns not stopping all situations. I agree but if one otherwise dead child was able to wake up in two days and enjoy Christmas, then the ban has a comparative advantage over the status quo and ought, as a moral imperative, be adopted.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
12/23/2012 10:22 AM
TYVM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
of 54
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.