• 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!

First amendmant VS the second

longview said:
Are you?
Our government in our constitution, says there are fundamental rights, (slightly different that John Locke's rights of man),
that the Government is not allowed to infringe upon.
Click to expand...

"Fundamental rights" that we decided were such and thus wrote into our Bill of Rights. If they truly existed as natural rights, then all of them would have been recognized throughout human history, but they were not. So just like the bear, your rights are in your head when someone else doesn't see it that way.
 
jet57 said:
"Fundamental rights" that we decided were such and thus wrote into our Bill of Rights. If they truly existed as natural rights, then all of them would have been recognized throughout human history, but they were not. So just like the bear, your rights are in your head when someone else doesn't see it that way.
Click to expand...
That is why I said the rights upon which the government shell not infringe are slightly different than the bears natural
right to keep from being hungry. Our constitution choose to itemize those rights they believed were fundamental.
 
jet57 said:
The first amendment was written to protect dissent. The second amendment was written to establish militias and armed citizens. Gun control has a very long history in this country, so I would suggest that you read some our history and gain a responsible perspective on it.
Click to expand...

Get rid of your weapons of war yet? Lead by example.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Get rid of your weapons of war yet? Lead by example.
Click to expand...

You mean my bolt action 1938 Russian M91/30 with the cycle and hammer stamped on the breach?

Why?
 
longview said:
That is why I said the rights upon which the government shell not infringe are slightly different than the bears natural
right to keep from being hungry. Our constitution choose to itemize those rights they believed were fundamental.
Click to expand...

Natural rights are a figment of the human imagination and you have no way of proving otherwise.
 
MrPeanut said:
When you say "militia arms" what are we talking about? I will confess that I am not well researched in the gun control debate, but I was always under the impression that a militia is basically a group of trained citizens. So the question I have is how do we decide where the line is on what militia members can own? It seems to me that whenever I see photos of "militias" in the United States they are armed pretty similarly to our soldiers.
Click to expand...

1. It's an individual right.
2. Militia, in this case, is a class of weapon. So, basically, infantry arms.
 
jet57 said:
"Natural Rights" are an illusion.
Click to expand...

Natural rights are a sociological fact established by empirical evidence. To the uneducated, things appear to be magic.
 
ecofarm said:
Natural rights are a sociological fact established by empirical evidence. To the uneducated, things appear to be magic.
Click to expand...

Sociological fact - empirical evidence.

Prove both.

Don't forget to include ALL societies. And what empirical evidence are you referring to? Said evidence must exist on its own free from human influence.
 
jet57 said:
Sociological fact - empirical evidence.

Prove both.

Don't forget to include ALL societies. And what empirical evidence are you referring to? Said evidence must exist on its own free from human influence.
Click to expand...

Gather 10 (or 100 or 1000) people, equal before the law and sane, and ask them these three questions:

1. Do you agree to observe our right to life in order to preserve your own?
2. Do you agree to observe our right to expression in order to preserve your own?
3. Do you agree to observe our right to self defense in order to preserve your own?

Same results, every iteration.

It doesn't matter where or even when one goes, all participants answer yes. These agreements are part of being human, inalienable. The drive is survival, individual, group and species. One's own answer of 'yes' is what makes the rights self evident.

The Enlightenment is about this concept replacing law by autocrat. This is the idea that spawns our ability to rule ourselves, as a nation and beyond. No longer would kings or theocrats decide our rights. We came to understand our rights as something not granted by man but nature - sociologically natural, universal agreements. Keep in mind, inalienable (not separable from mankind) does not mean inviolable. Individuals and authorities violate rights, but that does not make the right itself, the social agreement, go away.

Then, aware of the scientific foundation of a system of government to be controlled by the people, we have the American and French Revolutions.

Now, one can call the concepts of The Enlightenment, which lead to the Revolutions and modern Western World, an illusion or one can attempt to grasp them. If it's truly beyond one's grasp, of course it will always appear to be an elaborate trick.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Gather 10 (or 100 or 1000) people, equal before the law and sane, and ask them these three questions:

1. Do you agree to observe our right to life in order to preserve your own?
2. Do you agree to observe our right to expression in order to preserve your own?
3. Do you agree to observe our right to self defense in order to preserve your own?

Same results, every iteration.

It doesn't matter where or even when one goes, all participants answer yes. These agreements are part of being human, inalienable. The drive is survival, individual, group and species. One's own answer of 'yes' is what makes the rights self evident.

The Enlightenment is about this concept replacing law by autocrat. This is the idea that spawns our ability to rule ourselves, as a nation and beyond. No longer would kings or theocrats decide our rights. We came to understand our rights as something not granted by man but nature - sociologically natural, universal agreements. Keep in mind, inalienable (not separable from mankind) does not mean inviolable. Individuals and authorities violate rights, but that does not make the right itself, the social agreement, go away.

Then, aware of the scientific foundation of a system of government to be controlled by the people, we have the American and French Revolutions.

Now, one can call the concepts of The Enlightenment, which lead to the Revolutions and modern Western World, an illusion or one can attempt to grasp them. If it's truly beyond one's grasp, of course it will always appear to be an elaborate trick.
Click to expand...

The only thing all that says is that you can't prove your assertions.
 
jet57 said:
The only thing all that says is that you can't prove your assertions.
Click to expand...

Experiment: survey. Iterations, infinite. Results, universal. Thus, socially natural.

When the founders wrote, "endowed... Creator" they meant part of human nature, they did not mean dependent on a deity.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Experiment: survey. Iterations, infinite. Results, universal. Thus, socially natural.

When the founders wrote, "endowed... Creator" they meant part of human nature, they did not mean dependent on a deity.
Click to expand...

Do you now what an "abstract" is? Natural rights is an abstract; nothing more. It is used as a convenience to describe an ideal of living for man. That ideal was used as a construct for our founding documents based upon the Western European history of absolutism and religious repression and requirements. As an abstract ideal, the concept has been used in legal and political arguments dating to the Greeks, but natural rights have never been anything other than a social construct used to delineate our own social contracts.

Natural rights are just nothing more than that. The gun zealot crowd in the zeal for gun utopia have used the natural rights argument to further an agenda of any gun they want, for any reason they want to be carried anywhere they want and that nonsense just will not wash.
 
jet57 said:
Do you now what an "abstract" is? Natural rights is an abstract; nothing more. It is used as a convenience to describe an ideal of living for man. That ideal was used as a construct for our founding documents based upon the Western European history of absolutism and religious repression and requirements. As an abstract ideal, the concept has been used in legal and political arguments dating to the Greeks, but natural rights have never been anything other than a social construct used to delineate our own social contracts.
Click to expand...

Of course natural rights are an abstract object, a manifestation of the social contract and driven by species survival. Sociology is abstract, statistics is abstract. Abstract, object or otherwise, doesn't mean "illusion".
 
ecofarm said:
Of course natural rights are an abstract object, a manifestation of the social contract. Sociology is abstract, statistics is abstract. Abstract, object or otherwise, doesn't mean "illusion".
Click to expand...

They are not an "object" dude. They are a concept: an illusion.

Ask the bear.
 
jet57 said:
The first amendment was written to protect dissent. The second amendment was written to establish militias and armed citizens. Gun control has a very long history in this country, so I would suggest that you read some our history and gain a responsible perspective on it.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It was meant to protect liberty via the common man.
 
I can see that the members the OP directed this towards have "no" as in "ZERO" answers.

Thank you OP for defeating them in one thread.
 
jet57 said:
They are not an "object" dude. They are a concept: an illusion.

Ask the bear.
Click to expand...

Social constructs, which are abstract objects, are not illusions.

Do you dismiss sociology as a science?
 
ecofarm said:
Social constructs, which are abstract objects, are not illusions.

Do you dismiss sociology as a science?
Click to expand...

I dismiss your definition of "object".
 
jet57 said:
I dismiss your definition of "object".
Click to expand...

Fine, doesn't matter. The abstract, be that an idea, philosophy or ideology for examples, is not inherently an illusion.
 
ecofarm said:
Fine, doesn't matter. The abstract, be that an idea, philosophy or ideology for examples, is not inherently an illusion.
Click to expand...

Illusions aren't real, you know that right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom