Defining a Right

[haymarket]

Yet, when flat out asked you never present what you do believe. You just skip the first step and settle into a contrarian position to my states beliefs and then say, I didn't say that. Well no ****, you never say what you believe with any certainty, and thus never defend it. Trolls use those tactics, not honest posters. Be more honest, less trollish in your responses.

I have stated quite clearly what I believe. I made it very clear that rights are behaviors protected by the government of a society.

What about that so confuses and befuddles you?

I have stated quite clearly that I believe cultural values play an important role in determining what behaviors a society wants protected as a right.
What about that so confuses and befuddles you?

And what does that have to do with your own failure to present evidence of my views when you pretend that you can state them from your own perspective and they should be taken as the gospel truth?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Oh, so now you are against state rights?

States should not infringe on individual rights of law abiding citizens, they should pass laws that address the actual problem instead of disarming those already obeying the law.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I have stated quite clearly what I believe. I made it very clear that rights are behaviors protected by the government of a society.

What about that so confuses and befuddles you?

I have stated quite clearly that I believe cultural values play an important role in determining what behaviors a society wants protected as a right.
What about that so confuses and befuddles you?

And what does that have to do with your own failure to present evidence of my views when you pretend that you can state them from your own perspective and they should be taken as the gospel truth?

That's not all that you have stated in the past, you believe government grants those rights and can take them away as well, yes or no?

 

[haymarket]

That's not all that you have stated in the past, you believe government grants those rights and can take them away as well, yes or no?

I believe that right come from a demand by the people that they want a certain behavior protected as a right and it is government who has the authority to make that behavior a right.

And yes, government can take way a right if they decide to do that. It then becomes up to the people if they allow government to do just that and what opposition the people will take against the government taking away a recognized right.

 

[Goshin]

Society has decided to limit the 2nd amendment so that freedom loving Americans can't carry around nuclear arms. Is this just sanity, or liberals getting those freedom loving conservative patriot Americans on the slippery slope to their ultimate vision of Stalinist totalitarianism?

Someone always has to go there.

No right is entirely without limit; see Strict Scrutiny. Dawg knows I've explained it enough on here.



Nukes are area-effect weapons of mass destruction. Their utility to the individual for any lawful use is approximately nil. Restricting them is a societal necessity, not simply preferred or desireable, but essential: if every Joe Blow had a nuke there wouldn't be a society for very long. The restriction is narrowly construed (ie you can't have a warhead but you can have radioactive materials that are used for lawful purposes such as radium). Therefore it fulfills Strict Scrutiny.


Bringing up Nukes in the context of the 2A is even more ridiculous than claiming free speech means the right to propagate computer viruses....

 

[ataraxia]

Well, hell, why don't we just have a safety net over everyone, that ought to work. Its not a right.

People have the right to have a government who provides basic security.

I don't know if that's "natural" or not. But every government considered competent in the world today works and is judged by that premise. A government that leaves its people out to die if they hit hard times is one worth kicking out and replacing.

 

[ataraxia]

RE: nukes

Their utility to the individual for any lawful use is approximately nil. Restricting them is a societal necessity, not simply preferred or desireable, but essential

So how is that different than bump stocks on a semiautomatic military style assault weapon?

 

[OpportunityCost]

People have the right to have a government who provides basic security.

I don't know if that's "natural" or not. But every government considered competent in the world today works and is judged by that premise. A government that leaves its people out to die if they hit hard times is one worth kicking out and replacing.

That doesn't make it a right, more like a societal obligation, it requires large amounts of cost to the rest of society.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I believe that right come from a demand by the people that they want a certain behavior protected as a right and it is government who has the authority to make that behavior a right.

And yes, government can take way a right if they decide to do that. It then becomes up to the people if they allow government to do just that and what opposition the people will take against the government taking away a recognized right.

By what mechanism do you think government should take away rights?

 

[ataraxia]

That's not all that you have stated in the past, you believe government grants those rights and can take them away as well, yes or no?

Sure. If you don't believe it, we can try taking away government and seeing what happens. I bet even your right to breathe would go away so fast your head would spin. That's how things work in nature.

 

[ataraxia]

By what mechanism do you think government should take away rights?

Law and order.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Sure. If you don't believe it, we can try taking away government and seeing what happens. I bet even your right to breathe would go away so fast your head would spin. That's how things work in nature.

That is not directed to you, its directed to someone I am trying to get specifics on what he believes and direct questions are the ONLY way to get it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Law and order.

What a spectacular non-answer.

 

[ataraxia]

States should not infringe on individual rights of law abiding citizens, they should pass laws that address the actual problem instead of disarming those already obeying the law.

There is no question the laws address the actual problem. I am not sure why you don't think they do. States and countries with more strict gun laws have a definite trend toward being more safe. On the other hand, More guns=more crimes.

Here is the trend among states:



Here it is among nations:

 

[Goshin]

RE: nukes


So how is that different than bump stocks on a semiautomatic military style assault weapon?

The difference is a madman used a bump stock unlawfully a few weeks ago, and while the effects were horrible we still have a society.

If it was nukes, we wouldn't.


(I say this without taking a specific position on bump stocks, as I am still considering the matter.)



It's appalling that I'd even have to explain this to someone.

 

[ataraxia]

What a spectacular non-answer.

There are laws already infringing on your right to nuclear arms. They work reasonably well. Of course, there is a concern that even by infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens like you to such arms, outlaws can still obtain such weapons. So should we get rid of those laws and put nukes on sale at the local Wal-Mart? Because, as Bill O'Reilly says, this is the price of freedom?

 

[OpportunityCost]

There is no question the laws address the actual problem. I am not sure why you don't think they do. States and countries with more strict gun laws have a definite trend toward being more safe. On the other hand, More guns=more crimes.

Here is the trend among states:

View attachment 67224113

Here it is among nations:

View attachment 67224114

LOL, are you seriously extracting JUST gun related crimes to say countries in which guns are banned are safer because they have less gun crime?

That reasoning is a perfect sphere.

How about the rest of their crime?

 

[ataraxia]

The difference is a madman used a bump stock unlawfully a few weeks ago, and while the effects were horrible we still have a society.

If it was nukes, we wouldn't.


(I say this without taking a specific position on bump stocks, as I am still considering the matter.)

Nearly 60 people dead, another ~600 wounded. All in the space of a few minutes.

In Sandy Hook, there were 20 children between six and seven years old, as well as six adult staff members all killed in the space of a few minutes.

For what possible lawful purpose should these guns be out in the public? And how are these not a serious danger to society?

 

[OpportunityCost]

There are laws already infringing on your right to nuclear arms. They work reasonably well. Of course, there is a concern that even by infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens like you to such arms, outlaws can still obtain such weapons. So should we get rid of those laws and put them on sale at the local Wal-Mart?

I'm going to do to your argument what you are doing to mine.

In order to make people safer, all bats, cars, and sharp objects will be subject to government confiscation and licensing as well as excessive taxation...for your safety, of course.

C'mon, make a REASONABLE argument.

 

[ataraxia]

That doesn't make it a right, more like a societal obligation, it requires large amounts of cost to the rest of society.

To me, they are the same thing. How do you make the distinction?

 

[ataraxia]

I'm going to do to your argument what you are doing to mine.

In order to make people safer, all bats, cars, and sharp objects will be subject to government confiscation and licensing as well as excessive taxation...for your safety, of course.

C'mon, make a REASONABLE argument.

There is no possible civilian use or reason for the public to have access to semiautomatic weapons with bump stocks. Like you said, sane limits are not a slippery slope to Stalinism.

 

[Goshin]

Nearly 60 people dead, another ~600 wounded. All in the space of a few minutes.

In Sandy Hook, there were 20 children between six and seven years old, as well as six adult staff members all killed in the space of a few minutes.

For what possible lawful purpose should these guns be out in the public? And how are these not a serious danger to society?

Military style rifles are far, far less a threat to public safety than many other things.







Not to mention medical malpractice, costing around 200,000 lives a year, including my uncle just the now....

 

[haymarket]

By what mechanism do you think government should take away rights?

I do not advocate government taking away rights except in the most extreme of circumstances like extreme natural disasters or riots or internal warfare where law and order and civil norms have broken down. An example of this would be a curfew which takes away ones right to move about as they please or even assemble. And then it should be temporary and restored ASAP.

And I do not have a mechanism I have given any thought to.

 

[haymarket]

Military style rifles are far, far less a threat to public safety than many other things.



View attachment 67224115



Not to mention medical malpractice, costing around 200,000 lives a year, including my uncle just the now....

You have a right ot that opinion and judgment. And the rest of society has a right to their opinion and their judgment as to which present the more serious threat and what they want to do about it . And that is what we are talking about.

 

[ataraxia]

Military style rifles are far, far less a threat to public safety than many other things.



View attachment 67224115


Not to mention medical malpractice, costing around 200,000 lives a year, including my uncle just the now....

Brain cancer is even less a cause of loss of lives. Should we just ignore it and stop all research into preventing and treating it?