Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This is why Gun Control is Contentious

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Krampus View Post
    Again, a law may secure a right, safeguard a right, and protect a right, but a "legal right" just means that a specific law or set of laws has been written to secure a particular right.

    Many rights exist whether or not a specific law has been written to secure it.

    For instance your right not to be murdered, your right to refuse to be medically experimented on by your government, your right not to be sterilized because of your skin color or political views, etc., etc.
    If I personally do not have the capacity to prevent such actions against my person. And no group to dissuade, protect, or punish those who would do such things to me.

    How can I claim what you outlined above as an natural right for my person?
    Last edited by lant3rn; 12/12/2019 8:32am, .

    Comment


      #17
      My rights are an explicit restriction on the power of the government. Not an affirmative gift from a supreme authority.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by lant3rn View Post
        If I personally do not have the capacity to prevent such actions against my person. And no group to dissuade, protect, or punish those who would do such things to me.
        The ability to protect one's rights, much like charity, begins at home, and with one's own person.

        One must start by ensuring or taking reasonable steps that one has the mean's to protect one's own rights.

        One must not cede or sign away or waive one's rights.

        Originally posted by lant3rn View Post
        How can claim what you outlined above as an inherent right to my person?
        There have been several thousand years of philosophy, political discourse, and jurisprudence that address this question.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by ghost55 View Post
          My rights are an explicit restriction on the power of the government. Not an affirmative gift from a supreme authority.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Krampus View Post
            The ability to protect one's rights, much like charity, begins at home, and with one's own person.

            One must start by ensuring or taking reasonable steps that one has the mean's to protect one's own rights.

            One must not cede or sign away or waive one's rights.


            There have been several thousand years of philosophy, political discourse, and jurisprudence that address this question.
            Yes and I’m bored and just trying to discuss some of it.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by lant3rn View Post
              Yes and I’m bored and just trying to discuss some of it.
              All right.

              As an example, I would be morally bankrupt and infringing on the natural right of someone else if I punched someone in the face merely for saying that they are a Nazi.

              However, if that same person was physically assaulting someone else (or myself) in an immoral manner, including as an extension of their claimed Nazi philosophy, I would feel morally justified to shoot them in the face, and I would not lose any sleep over it.

              One may quibble about whether or not that use of force may be appropriate or excessive, but if I ordered them to stop their violence, and they refused, in my situation of advanced age and infirmity, I would shoot them in the face or chest or pelvis rather than risk greater harm including death to myself by using more risky methods to my own person.

              In this way, I have seen to my own defense, and my ability to contribute to safeguarding my neighbors and community, by making sure I am armed, trained in the use of my firearms, and I maintain two insurance policies specifically to cover my criminal legal fees, civil legal fees, and any resulting civil liabilities if I have to use my firearms or any weapon to see to my own defense or the defense of others.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by lant3rn View Post
                If I personally do not have the capacity to prevent such actions against my person.
                Yeah? Well we do.

                We have that power because we will to exercise it.

                It's as simple as that. Either you put in your own work or you don't

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by Krampus View Post
                  All right.

                  As an example, I would be morally bankrupt and infringing on the natural right of someone else if I punched someone in the face merely for saying that they are a Nazi.

                  However, if that same person was physically assaulting someone else (or myself) in an immoral manner, including as an extension of their claimed Nazi philosophy, I would feel morally justified to shoot them in the face, and I would not lose any sleep over it.

                  One may quibble about whether or not that use of force may be appropriate or excessive, but if I ordered them to stop their violence, and they refused, in my situation of advanced age and infirmity, I would shoot them in the face or chest or pelvis rather than risk greater harm including death to myself by using more risky methods to my own person.

                  In this way, I have seen to my own defense, and my ability to contribute to safeguarding my neighbors and community, by making sure I am armed, trained in the use of my firearms, and I maintain two insurance policies specifically to cover my criminal legal fees, civil legal fees, and any resulting civil liabilities if I have to use my firearms or any weapon to see to my own defense or the defense of others.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Mr. Machette View Post
                    Yeah? Well we do.

                    We have that power because we will to exercise it.

                    It's as simple as that. Either you put in your own work or you don't
                    You have the inherent capacity (on your own) to prevent anyone or any group from inflicting harm on you?

                    Are you some Demi god I have not heard of yet?

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by lant3rn View Post
                      Maybe by attacking you or someone else preemptively the nazi could claim the same justification as you did?
                      No, pre-emptive physical attacks cannot claim the same moral ground (nor legal defensibility in any nation where individuals have legally protected rights) as stopping violence in progress.

                      Nor can one claim moral foundation for arresting and/or prosecuting someone preemptively who has not yet committed a crime.

                      See "The Minority Report" by Philip K. Dick for more light hearted reading on this issue.

                      Or, thousands of years of human history, including up until today, of Star Court Chamber, Police State, and Death Squad arrests and prosecutions without proof of criminal acts other than accusation throughout history up until the modern day, sadly.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by lant3rn View Post
                        You have the inherent capacity (on your own) to prevent anyone or any group from inflicting harm on you?

                        Are you some Demi god I have not heard of yet?
                        With the right terrain, strategy, and a modicum of supplies and equipment, a single person can defy and harass even a modern army for a shockingly long time,

                        or hit a one and done with a payoff grossly in excess of the price of their life to cause the damage and loss of lives they inflict in return.

                        A group of such individuals, even if grossly outgunned, and lacking in modern warfare technology, may hold a war of attrition that ends up being measured not in years, not in decades, but in centuries.

                        See the tribes inhabiting the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Vietcong, etc. as examples of such groups in modern history.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by Krampus View Post
                          No, pre-emptive physical attacks cannot claim the same moral ground (nor legal defensibility in any nation where citizens have rights) as stopping violence in progress.

                          Nor can one claim moral foundation for arresting and/or prosecuting someone preemptively who has not yet committed a crime.

                          See "The Minority Report" by Philip K. Dick for more light hearted reading on this issue.

                          Or, thousands of years including up until today of Star Court Chamber, Police State, and Death Squad arrests without proof of criminal acts other than accusation throughout history up until the modern day, sadly.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by Krampus View Post
                            With the right terrain, strategy, and a modicum of supplies and equipment, a single person can defy and harass even a modern army for a shockingly long time, or for a one and done with a payoff grossly in excess of the price of their life to cause the damage and loss of lives they inflict in return.

                            A group of such individuals, even if grossly outgunned, and lacking in modern warfare technology, may hold a war of attrition that ends up being measured not in years, not in decades, but in centuries.

                            See the tribes inhabiting the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Vietcong, etc.
                            Yes people can put up a good fight, but no one is an island.

                            groups working together need some form of agreed upon moral framework that supersedes the natural order.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by lant3rn View Post
                              What your saying sounds just to me... but not of a natural kind.

                              The fact that horrific things do occur in the name of preemptive justifications, tells me that by nature; such actions are amoral.

                              It is within the group collective that the courage is found to codify and uphold nobler ideas of justice. Ideas that spit in face of a natural order that doesn’t give a damn.
                              You must decide if you speak of the Natural Law as Thomas Aquinas did, based on the idea that man is held above the standards of an animal, and that there are certain natural moralities because they were laid down by a moral creator, in whose image man was cast, and man has some obligation to live up to that higher purpose.

                              Or, is man just an animal, and any animal has the moral right to act in its own interests, whether peremptorily or otherwise, because it is the nature of animals to prey on other animals.

                              Or is man the beneficiary of a social contract with other humans, and therefore bound by the terms of that social contract, having participated in its benefits.

                              Or, shall we be practical about the matter, and take the utilitarian approach, and do that which maximizes the good for the most people, and minimizes the evil for the most people.

                              Or perhaps nothing really matters, as we are all guaranteed to die, and we, ourselves, other people, and our entire planet are insignificant in the universe.

                              There are other approaches, but the ones I list above are common points of view to start with in the Western culture.
                              Last edited by Dr. Gonzo; 12/12/2019 9:07am, .

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by lant3rn View Post
                                Yes people can put up a good fight, but no one is an island.

                                groups working together need some form of agreed upon moral framework that supersedes the natural order.
                                Groups working together need to work together.

                                An agreed upon moral framework is optional in that regard.

                                Mercenaries have been popular and effective throughout history because they kill for money.

                                One could argue that having the integrity to kill the people one agrees to kill and not take the money and kill the patron is a moral code, I suppose.

                                But so long as the money is paid and the killing continues, with or without morals, even solely out of pure respective self-interest, such activity may still be effective in its intended purpose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X