• 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!

Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

Do You Believe in Natural Rights?

  • Yes

    Votes: 36 41.4%

  • No

    Votes: 51 58.6%
  • Total voters
    87
haymarket said:
Your position is iconsistent with reality and the actual words of the Amendment.

Here is my position:

The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.




Now who agrees with me?




Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.




And it is the agreement of all those above with my interpretation which counts in the final analysis.

You trying to justify your belief about guns based on another belief - natural rights - means nothing since it is only a theory and cannot be proven to be true or real beyond a belief.
Click to expand...

where were those legislators given such power

and the repeat spam is noted
 
TurtleDude said:
where were those legislators given such power

and the repeat spam is noted
Click to expand...

In the Constitution. But you know that because you and I have danced to this tune more times than anybody cares to remember.
Truth is not spam - no matter how many times it is repeated
 
haymarket said:
In the Constitution. But you know that because you and I have danced to this tune more times than anybody cares to remember.
Truth is not spam - no matter how many times it is repeated
Click to expand...

its spam because you repeat it constantly and it doesn't prove anything that you claim

lots of politicians are contemptuous of the constitution and figure if they can get away with it without the court slapping them down, so be it
 
TurtleDude said:
its spam because you repeat it constantly and it doesn't prove anything that you claim

lots of politicians are contemptuous of the constitution and figure if they can get away with it without the court slapping them down, so be it
Click to expand...

Reality proves I am right and repeating it is a public service.

Yeah - I get it - any official who does not agree with you is to be held in contempt.
 
haymarket said:
Reality proves I am right and repeating it is a public service.

Yeah - I get it - any official who does not agree with you is to be held in contempt.
Click to expand...

you haven't proved anything-and your claim that the natural right is not infringed until you cannot own a single firearm is beyond dishonest.

and yes, most politicians are contemptuous of the Constitution since it limits their powers
 
Jerry said:
Right, exactly, and that means they are not inalienable rights, because they can all be taken away.
Click to expand...

Well, no. As I said, only the grantor of a right can "take it away," if by "take it away" we're referring to "alienate" as it's understood by pretty much everyone with one possible exception. If the state grants you a right to be repaid for a debt but then I renege on repaying you, according to you I've "taken away" your right to be repaid. Honestly, that's one right I'd call pretty much worthless. The people who founded this country happened to believe that natural rights aren't granted be men, so no man can "take them away" as you apparently maintain. Now, if you're going to maintain that there are no natural rights, then proceed with your proof, please.
 
Jerry said:
That's a right under civil law, a Civil Right. That is not a Natural right.
Click to expand...

Did you just declare that a natural right is not a natural right? When you refer to 'That's," what are you talking about? :confused: Anyway, in a state of nature, there is no civil law. That's a societal invention.
 
TurtleDude said:
you haven't proved anything-and your claim that the natural right is not infringed until you cannot own a single firearm is beyond dishonest.

and yes, most politicians are contemptuous of the Constitution since it limits their powers
Click to expand...

There is no natural right to infringe upon. Thus falls your entire premise.
 
haymarket said:
Everyone who wants to participate in a thread is free to do so and is thus part of that conversation as it is all public and open to all. If you want a PRIVATE conversation with another poster, the board has a PM service they provide. If you do not know how to use it I will be happy to guide you through.
Click to expand...

let me set you straight so you know what you are talking about.

first..i going to keep this as short as i can.


i stated to another poster, that the DOI was subjective but he did not quite agree, he believed it to be more a religious document.

i stated to him that Jefferson's first original draft of the document was more religious, then the one in the national archives now.

then you jumped in and started and accused me of creating things on my own.

thats when i told you to "read the original draft"
 
Last edited:
yes the natural right to freedom..i believe any slave has the right to kill there captive/slave owner to gain freedom..even god does not own people ...other than that there should be laws
 
AlbqOwl said:
They are just as inalienable in other countries as they are here. The concept was recognized and written about extensively all the way back to ancient Greece and is found within the writings of such ancient philosophers as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle followed later by Cicero, the Stoics, and the great philosophers of the enlightenment, all living in societies in which people often did not have the liberty to exercise their natural rights, but knew that such rights existed nevertheless.

John Locke argued that man was born into a state of nature in which he was rational, tolerant, and happy and could enjoy the rights of life, liberty, and property unhindered. But some chose to threaten the liberties of others and therefore humankind entered into a social contract aka compact in which all would agree on how society would guarantee the rights of all. Locke believed that the only reason for the existence of government was to preserve natural rights and, by extension, man’s happiness and security.

Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...
eloquently expressed such a concept with the Declaration of Independence that was intended to be affirmed by the Preamble of the Constitution and the way the U.S. government was structured.
Click to expand...



Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner who treated some of his slaves brutally. That's a fact.

What happened to those slaves natural rights?




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
shrubnose said:
Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner who treated some of his slaves brutally. That's a fact.

What happened to those slaves natural rights?
Click to expand...

They got hosed? :shrug:

You know, even a hypocrite can be right.
 
Ahlevah said:
They got hosed?
Click to expand...
:shrug:

You know, even a hypocrite can be right.
Click to expand...



History tells us what happened to them.

The USA's 'founding fathers' fought the Revolutionary War to secure their own rights and freedom. Not for the rights and freedom of the women and slaves that they controlled.

The rights and freedom of the slaves and women in the USA were only secured after long, hard struggles.
 
A "privilege....IE... civil right/legal right" of government

i want to be a licensed professional, so i exercise my "natural right to seek to be one" by following the regulations of government...getting the needed education, testing, and when i have satisfied those requirements government exercises it powers and issues me a license for my new profession.

A "natural" right of the people

i decide i will take a walk to the park of my neighborhood....i exercise my power of movement of my feet in the direction i wish to go, and i am on my way without government hindering me by stating i need oral permission/ license/ permit of that government to walk to my neighborhood park.
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
History tells us what happened to them.

The USA's 'founding fathers' fought the Revolutionary War to secure their own rights and freedom. Not for the rights and freedom of the women and slaves that they controlled.

The rights and freedom of the slaves and women in the USA were only secured after long, hard struggles.
Click to expand...

the treatment of women was no different then it had been for centuries...

Blacks were not consider people but property.....i know its something today we think of as crazy.

200 yrs from now people in the future are going to judge you and i, are you willing to accept that?
 
Sherman123 said:
This topic seems to have popped up in a few threads recently so I thought I'd put this together. Put simply do you believe in the concept of natural rights? That is to say rights that are "not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable".

Personally I don't. I think that Hobbes had it right when he intimated that the only 'natural right' that a human being possesses is the right to strive for their own survival. Everything else exists only at the sufferance of your own strength or the kindness of others. It is part of what makes civilization so essential and so valuable, because by creating a society we attempt to lift ourselves out of that war of all against all. This allows for freedom of speech, property rights, press freedoms, freedom of worship, etc. Absent organized society these 'rights' would be purely theoretical.
Click to expand...

I would agree. Rights do not grow in nature. Whatever rights people agree on are only effective if they are politically sanctioned.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the treatment of women was no different then it had been for centuries...

Blacks were not consider people but property.....i know its something today we think of as crazy.

200 yrs from now people in the future are going to judge you and i, are you willing to accept that?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



BS. 200 years from now no one will know that we ever existed.

Get a grip.
 
shrubnose said:
BS. 200 years from now no one will know that we ever existed.

Get a grip.
Click to expand...

get a grip.....and use your head

when i said you, i mean you and me ..us ,we, now

you judge the people of 200 or more yrs ago for there actions

you and me ..us ,we, now.......are going to be judged by generations in the future for the terrible things we did.

so get a grip
 
ernst barkmann said:
get a grip.....and
use your head
Click to expand...
when i said you, i mean you and me ..us ,we, now

you judge the people of 200 or more yrs ago for there actions

you and me ..us ,we, now.......are going to be judged by generations in the future for the terrible things we did.

so get a grip
Click to expand...



I have and it tells me that you're full of it.
 
shrubnose said:
I have and it tells me that you're full of it.
Click to expand...

you seem to think you do no wrong.....well get a grip you do.

in your personal life and in decisions i am sure you wanted on government actions ......which were taken.

you are constantly talking about people of the past and criticizing them for their actions, well the decisions you and me ..us ,we, now make are going to be criticized in the future.

so before you cast any stones, you better look about for those stones that are coming your way...you are not perfect human being.
 
Last edited:
Ahlevah said:
Let me stop you there. ANY right can be "taken away" in the sense that a person can be deprived of it. The issue, though, is whether someone who isn't the grantor of the right can "take it away" in the ethical or legal sense. In the case of natural rights, we're talking about a moral or ethical state of affairs. Perhaps you don't believe in morality; you just assume that life exists and there's no point to it. Whatever rights you get come only from a beneficial human. If that's the case, then our discussion is over, because no amount of moral proselytizing on my part will sway you. But from a legal standpoint if the state says, for example, that you have a right to be repaid for a debt and I just say, "Screw it. I'm not repaying you," according to your logic your right to repayment ends there. I mean, if you're going to argue that someone other than the grantor of a right can "take it away" then, well, I just took your right away.
Click to expand...

Gentle disagreement. A 'natural' or 'unalienable' or 'inalienable' or 'God given' right cannot be taken away. A legal or civil right can be--a law that grants you the privilege of driving on a public highway, for instance, can be changed to only allow certain people to drive on that highway. So a right that you had, is taken away.

But nobody can take away your right to live, to breathe, to hope, to aspire, to seek your own comfort or happiness, to believe what you believe, to worship as you choose, to think, to speak what you think, to create, to rejoice, to grieve, to inspire, to explore, to wonder, to choose to defend or protect yourself or what you love or what you have. Nor can you give such unalienable rights to a single other soul. All other people can do is restrict or remove your ability to exercise or demonstrate such rights just as a roadblock can restrict your ability to exercise your right to drive on that highway.

The Constitution was intended to prevent a king or pope or other authority from interfering with the liberty to fully enjoy and exercise our unalienable rights so long as we did not require contribution or participation by any other.

It is a concept I think that is crystal clear to those who really understand the concept that went into the original Constitution. But those who have been so brainwashed or influenced so that they are unable to comprehend that concept, it is all foolishness to them. And the more the pity for it.
 
ernst barkmann said:
you seem to think you do no wrong.....well get a grip you do.

in your personal life and in decisions i am sure you wanted on government actions ......which were taken.

you are constantly talking about people of the past and criticizing them for their actions, well the decisions you and me ..us ,we, now make are going to be criticized in the future.

so before you cast any stones, you better look about for those stones that are coming your way...
you are not perfect human being
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...



That's your opinion which you are entitled to and I will ignore since so many of your opinions are totally wrong.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Gentle disagreement. A 'natural' or 'unalienable' or 'inalienable' or 'God given' right cannot be taken away. A legal or civil right can be--a law that grants you the privilege of driving on a public highway, for instance, can be changed to only allow certain people to drive on that highway. So a right that you had, is taken away.

But nobody can take away your right to live, to breathe, to hope, to aspire, to seek your own comfort or happiness, to believe what you believe, to worship as you choose, to think, to speak what you think, to create, to rejoice, to grieve, to inspire, to explore, to wonder, to choose to defend or protect yourself or what you love or what you have. Nor can you give such unalienable rights to a single other soul. All other people can do is restrict or remove your ability to exercise or demonstrate such rights just as a roadblock can restrict your ability to exercise your right to drive on that highway.

It is a concept I think that is crystal clear to those who really understand the concept that went into the original Constitution. But those who have been so brainwashed or influenced so that they are unable to comprehend that concept, it is all foolishness to them. And the more the pity for it.
Click to expand...


unalienable means... rights cannot be separated from you in anyway.

inalienable means....rights cannot be separated from you in any lawful way, meaning .........you by you own consent can give them up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom