Wouldn't it be one of the commandments if it were given by G-D, or did he just miss that one.
Are you saying that G-d isn't perfect because he left that one out?
And Jesus didn't say anything about guns, unless he meant that when he said "Blessed are the peacemakers". Unfortunately, the Biblical scribe left out "for Col. Colt made all men equal".
Could that be some deletion from an early Church synod that didn't understand weapons.
Oh dear the Bible says: Joel 3:10 - Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears.
Isaiah 2:4 - They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.
Micah 4:3 - They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks
Now what bearing might that have on G-D making the Second Amendment a right?
The weird thing about the "natural rights" argument is two-fold. On one hand, "natural rights" presupposes there exists some supernatural being *and* we understand its purpose and meaning. Given the fact Jefferson, author of the DoI, was probably an atheist--it doesn't seem likely he was invoking some deity.
OTOH, "natural rights"--absent some supernatural being--basically means 'might means right.' That is, if I'm bigger and stronger than you, I have every right to take from you what I wish.
Laci of course, misinterprets the Bible the same way he misinterprets the Constitution.
First, I think you mean Joel 4, not 3. Secondly, Joel 4:10 reverses the concept of beating swords into plowshares-- in other words, making weapons of war, not destroying them. Reading more closely, we see that this was a call to war.
Secondly, both Micah and Isaiah are in reference to peace, once the Lord has come to judge all the nations. In other words, there would be no more war, so at that time, swords and spears would no longer be needed.
Thirdly, rights and Commandments are not the same.
At any rate, it confuses the issue to pretend that the 2A was handed down from on high as the Commandments were to Moses. No one has suggested any such thing, but rather the concept that our rights to self defense would naturally include any tools we saw fit to make. God gave the tiger teeth and claws. God did not see fit to give us long sharp claws or long sharp teeth and thick fur or tough hides, but instead He gave us our brains and imagination and the ability to make tools. Hence, our God-given rights.
Thomas Jefferson would be most properly called a Deist. He certainly seemed to accept that a God (a Creator) existed. He did not necessarily reject the idea of a God. In fact, in most of his writings, he did not ever deny the existence of a God, he only questioned the existence of God, and believed that any God would rather that than blind acceptance.
He rejected Christianity, not because of Jesus, but because he did not accept that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. He seemed to believe that Jesus was a great moral authority, but Jefferson did not identify himself as either a Christian or as an athiest.
As to natural rights, it presupposes no such thing. What natural rights does presuppose is the concept that by merely being a human being, every person inherits the natural right to protect himself.
As to the foolishness that natural rights would thereby mean might makes right, it is utter hogwash. What it means is that every person, regardless of their might or lack thereof, still has the natural right to defend their life.
It is through arms and training that humans, as the top of the food chain, so to speak, may defend their lives most effectively. To deny humans the means to use, keep, and bear those arms is going against nature.
You cannot deny the tiger the means to use, keep, and bear his claws. Why then would it be acceptable to deny the human his arms?
Anon: Your thinking is rather sloppy WRT natural rights.
You acknowledge Jefferson was a Deist--I agree. This meant Jefferson believed there was some supreme being but did not believe this supreme being imparted any supernatural revelation.
so, when Jefferson writes that we "hold these truths to be self-evident"--Jefferson is merely saying 'we want them because we want them.'
When you write that tigers and bears have claws and teeth but deny that this constitutes a 'might makes right' situation. The tiger, or bear if you prefer, is going to use his claws and teeth to kill and eat whatever animal he chooses if he's hungry. He will use them to defend himself if he feels threatened--whether or not a threat actually exists. He may use them to attack another tiger (or bear) in order to assert his claim on a mate--regardless of the potential mate's preferences.
IOW, you're conflating that which is found in nature as a "right."
If there is a "natural right" to self-defense, there are a number of questions you have to answer:
1. Why does this "right" to self-defense seem to terminate at firearms? After all, if it is within a man's capacity to develop chemical or biological weapons--why can't those be claimed as self-defense weapons.
2. In nature, many animals have various self-defense mechanisms--you mentioned teeth and claws. Yet, in nature, many--if not most--animals may force themselves on a mate. Are you saying the 'right' to self-defense also assumes a 'right' to rape?
Jadegold: “1. Why does this "right" to self-defense seem to terminate at firearms? After all, if it is within a man's capacity to develop chemical or biological weapons--why can't those be claimed as self-defense weapons.”
Chemical weapons like Pepper spray? Also, I use biological self-defense everyday without even thinking about it.
TS: Again, why does self-defense magically terminate at firearms? After all, if I'm a typical gunloon and fear the US Govt. is going to show up at my door demanding my back copies of 'Guns and Ammo'--I really dont think pepper spray is going to do the trick.
FWM: Merely demonstrating why the gunloons want it both ways.
First, if you agree Jefferson was a Deist, why did you call him an atheist? They aren't the same, you know. For the record, agnostics are not atheists, either, but it would have been more fitting to call him that.
Secondly, my thinking is sloppy? You offer that Jefferson is merely stating that "we want them because we want them"? Really?? Are you that dense?
"We hold these truths to be self evident."
He is stating that this is so obvious, anyone with an IQ above room temperature will understand that this is so. Have you just excluded yourself from our company with your statement of "we want them because we want them"?
Third, I never mentioned bears. You did. Re-read it, if you please.
Fourth, it is not regardless of the potential mate's preferences. That's the whole point. The female may fight off the agressive male if she feels he's not a worthy mate. It does happen, and happens often.
As to your questions: 1. Who says that it does stop at firearms? I did not. Nor did I go so far as to protray Weapons of Mass Destruction as weapons for self defense. Gee, I wonder who brought up that straw man?
2. No. I made no such ridiculous claim. As I pointed out above, the female has her own right to self defense, and many times the female will fight off a male that she feels is unworthy.
The continuation of a species in nature requires that one half of the species must attempt to mate with the other half. In most cases, it falls to the males to "make their move." In some cases, the female will be more aggressive (biological clock, and all that).
In some cases, the males attempt to show off, in some cases the males attract attention via coloring and "dance," in some cases the males fight each other, in some cases the males attack (rape, as you say it) the female, and in some cases the males risk their very lives merely on the hope that the female won't kill them for daring to come too close. Birds will exhibit the first and second forms of mate gathering. Just because they don't resort to violence (as we see it) to successfully mate, doesn't mean that we hold them as more civilized or better than deer, cows, or black widows.
Jade, you seem to be pulling the Nuke/Anthrax argument out of your rear again. Since no one here is asking for personal stash of anthrax, it would seem your reasoning for wanting to steer the conversation in that direction is because your argument against guns for self-defense is weak. You have a much better time arguing against chemical and biological weapons for self-defense, so you do. But who are you arguing with?
Also, if you try to rape a tiger, she would probably use her claws and teeth against you. I am not sure where you are going with that.
Aztecred: “It's going to be hard to make a case for self-defense with a weapon that harms your assailant and everyone in the surrounding area.”
Anon: There simply is no difference between saying we "hold these truths to be self-evident" and "we want them because we want them."
Think for a moment. If your physics teacher asked you why force equals mass times acceleration--about the worst answer you could give is 'I hold it to be self-evident.'
In historical context, Jefferson was declaring to the King of England--as well as to those in America and elsewhere--why America felt the need to separate itself from England. An explanation usually requires some sort of evidence or reason beyond 'Hey, I'm entitled to all these rights because I want them.'
WRT animals--many animals do use their self-defense mechanisms to battle competitors for mates. And most of the time, the female has no say in the matter.
Very, very sloppy thinking on your part. Especially when you bring up the biological clock. And you ignored the fact that in nature most every animal will use its inherent weapons to kill, indiscriminantly, if hungry or if it perceives a threat that may not exist.
Your argument is inconsistent. On one hand, you claim man has a right to develop weapons to defend himself. OTOH, you decide, arbitrarily, this right somehow stops at firearms.
"If your physics teacher asked you why force equals mass times acceleration--about the worst answer you could give is 'I hold it to be self-evident.'"
So, you've decided to reveal that your IQ is actually lower than room temperature, eh?
It wouldn't just be the worst answer, it would also be the wrong answer, since physics is a science with hard and fast rules governing things such as force, mass and acceleration. There are mathematical equations by which we may derive the answers.
Whereas, the notion of rights (natural or God given or whatever) is more philosophical in nature (pardon the pun). There's room for disagreement, but with math and science, there's only one right answer, usually.
In the particular case of Jefferson's self evident truths, which ones exactly do you believe are wrong (or not self evident)? Be specific.
WRT animals--Females have very much to say on the matter. In many cases, throughout many species the females is bigger than the male. This is especially true amongst the arthropods. They can and do decide whom gets to mate with them.
As for "ignoring" that animals use their inherent weapons to kill, of course they do. They are animals, and they have a survival instinct. Eat, defend, survive, procreate. That's their instinct. The only thing that matters is survival, and procreation. Everything else is details that serve those two goals. And it's largely irrelevant.
The only relevance that has to this discussion is that animals have the sense to preserve their lives, and they make use with whatever nature provided for them. We too have the sense to protect ourselves to preserve our lives, and we too make use of what nature has provided us.
Lastly, my argument is not inconsistent. At no point did I ever say that "man has a right to develop weapons to defend himself" but then go on to say that I "decide, arbitrarily, this right somehow stops at firearms."
I defy you to pinpoint where I said that. I didn'y even come close to suggesting that. In fact, I utterly and totally disagree with it.
I wonder if FatWhiteMan isn't correct about you and your meds.
Anonymous: “Lastly, my argument is not inconsistent. At no point did I ever say that "man has a right to develop weapons to defend himself" but then go on to say that I "decide, arbitrarily, this right somehow stops at firearms." I defy you to pinpoint where I said that. I didn'y even come close to suggesting that. In fact, I utterly and totally disagree with it.”
Lastly, my argument is not inconsistent. At no point did I ever say that "man has a right to develop weapons to defend himself" but then go on to say that I "decide, arbitrarily, this right somehow stops at firearms."
I see.
So when you write: "It is through arms and training that humans, as the top of the food chain, so to speak, may defend their lives most effectively. To deny humans the means to use, keep, and bear those arms is going against nature."--you aren't saying man has a right to develop weapons. And you're saying that firearms aren't arms.
When I stated "It is through arms and training that humans, as the top of the food chain, so to speak, may defend their lives most effectively. To deny humans the means to use, keep, and bear those arms is going against nature..."---I was indeed saying that man has a right to develop and use tools, including weapons.
Further, I was necessarily including firearms in the category of arms. What I never did, and still have not done, was to limit that to only firearms.
You added the category of WMD, as though it should logically follow, but I never did that--nor do I concede that it should. If you want to make that case, it's your straw man.
I also do not limit it to firearms. There may be future weapons that allow for discriminate self defense use. We should also be able to keep and bear those weapons, as our technology advances.
Let me clarify that for you, as you seem unable to grasp simple concepts:
All living things have a natural inherent right to live, and to defend their lives.
Man has the natural ability to make tools, including guns.
Because we do not have the natural inherent weapons that other apex predators and other species have, but we do have tool-making capabilites, imagination and opposable thumbs, we can make guns and use them.
Therefore, it follows that since we are naturally able to do this (make tools), it must be inherent to us, as a species.
Clear enough? Yeah, probably not. Let me get some crayons from my kids, and I'll draw you a picture....
Anon: You keep claiming all these "inherent" rights without a shred of evidence as to why they're inherent. IOW, you're basically saying you want them because you want want them.
It's akin to someone claiming they have an inherent right to yacht because it's part of the happiness that Jefferson claimed as a truth.
You repeat your claim that because man can do this or that then it is inherent to us as a species. Consider the possibilities before engaging in such silly logic.
Jadegoof, you're being this stupid on purpose, right? I mean, are you this much of blockhead in real life, or do you save it all for the internet?
You know what, never mind -- Yes, that's what I'm claiming. Everyone get a yacht, because we want one, except if you don't, then you're entitled to a Ferrari, but only a green one. Glad you understand. You win the internetz with your awesome display of circumlocutory logic. Because you managed to convince me with your repeated refusal to even begin to get a glimpse of a clue, I acknowledge your correctness and will turn over all my guns to the nearest cop.
Wow, I can feel my 'guilt' as a gun owner fading away already.....
Shrek couldn't even answer a simple question.
ReplyDeleteIt's not mentioned in the Tanakh.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be one of the commandments if it were given by G-D, or did he just miss that one.
Are you saying that G-d isn't perfect because he left that one out?
And Jesus didn't say anything about guns, unless he meant that when he said "Blessed are the peacemakers". Unfortunately, the Biblical scribe left out "for Col. Colt made all men equal".
Could that be some deletion from an early Church synod that didn't understand weapons.
Oh dear the Bible says:
Joel 3:10 - Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears.
Isaiah 2:4 - They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.
Micah 4:3 - They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks
Now what bearing might that have on G-D making the Second Amendment a right?
Sounds pro-ban to me.
Laci
People without a theological orientation prefer the term natural rights.
ReplyDeleteThe weird thing about the "natural rights" argument is two-fold. On one hand, "natural rights" presupposes there exists some supernatural being *and* we understand its purpose and meaning. Given the fact Jefferson, author of the DoI, was probably an atheist--it doesn't seem likely he was invoking some deity.
ReplyDeleteOTOH, "natural rights"--absent some supernatural being--basically means 'might means right.' That is, if I'm bigger and stronger than you, I have every right to take from you what I wish.
Shrek couldn't even answer a simple question.
ReplyDeleteFWM can say this as he is the model of physical beauty.
Laci of course, misinterprets the Bible the same way he misinterprets the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I think you mean Joel 4, not 3. Secondly, Joel 4:10 reverses the concept of beating swords into plowshares-- in other words, making weapons of war, not destroying them. Reading more closely, we see that this was a call to war.
Secondly, both Micah and Isaiah are in reference to peace, once the Lord has come to judge all the nations. In other words, there would be no more war, so at that time, swords and spears would no longer be needed.
Thirdly, rights and Commandments are not the same.
At any rate, it confuses the issue to pretend that the 2A was handed down from on high as the Commandments were to Moses. No one has suggested any such thing, but rather the concept that our rights to self defense would naturally include any tools we saw fit to make. God gave the tiger teeth and claws. God did not see fit to give us long sharp claws or long sharp teeth and thick fur or tough hides, but instead He gave us our brains and imagination and the ability to make tools. Hence, our God-given rights.
Thomas Jefferson would be most properly called a Deist. He certainly seemed to accept that a God (a Creator) existed. He did not necessarily reject the idea of a God. In fact, in most of his writings, he did not ever deny the existence of a God, he only questioned the existence of God, and believed that any God would rather that than blind acceptance.
ReplyDeleteHe rejected Christianity, not because of Jesus, but because he did not accept that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. He seemed to believe that Jesus was a great moral authority, but Jefferson did not identify himself as either a Christian or as an athiest.
As to natural rights, it presupposes no such thing. What natural rights does presuppose is the concept that by merely being a human being, every person inherits the natural right to protect himself.
As to the foolishness that natural rights would thereby mean might makes right, it is utter hogwash. What it means is that every person, regardless of their might or lack thereof, still has the natural right to defend their life.
It is through arms and training that humans, as the top of the food chain, so to speak, may defend their lives most effectively. To deny humans the means to use, keep, and bear those arms is going against nature.
You cannot deny the tiger the means to use, keep, and bear his claws. Why then would it be acceptable to deny the human his arms?
"FWM can say this as he is the model of physical beauty."
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jade!
Anon: Your thinking is rather sloppy WRT natural rights.
ReplyDeleteYou acknowledge Jefferson was a Deist--I agree. This meant Jefferson believed there was some supreme being but did not believe this supreme being imparted any supernatural revelation.
so, when Jefferson writes that we "hold these truths to be self-evident"--Jefferson is merely saying 'we want them because we want them.'
When you write that tigers and bears have claws and teeth but deny that this constitutes a 'might makes right' situation. The tiger, or bear if you prefer, is going to use his claws and teeth to kill and eat whatever animal he chooses if he's hungry. He will use them to defend himself if he feels threatened--whether or not a threat actually exists. He may use them to attack another tiger (or bear) in order to assert his claim on a mate--regardless of the potential mate's preferences.
IOW, you're conflating that which is found in nature as a "right."
If there is a "natural right" to self-defense, there are a number of questions you have to answer:
1. Why does this "right" to self-defense seem to terminate at firearms? After all, if it is within a man's capacity to develop chemical or biological weapons--why can't those be claimed as self-defense weapons.
2. In nature, many animals have various self-defense mechanisms--you mentioned teeth and claws. Yet, in nature, many--if not most--animals may force themselves on a mate. Are you saying the 'right' to self-defense also assumes a 'right' to rape?
Lions and Tigers and Rape, oh my.
ReplyDeleteJade, I think you missed your meds this afternoon.
Jadegold: “1. Why does this "right" to self-defense seem to terminate at firearms? After all, if it is within a man's capacity to develop chemical or biological weapons--why can't those be claimed as self-defense weapons.”
ReplyDeleteChemical weapons like Pepper spray? Also, I use biological self-defense everyday without even thinking about it.
TS: Again, why does self-defense magically terminate at firearms? After all, if I'm a typical gunloon and fear the US Govt. is going to show up at my door demanding my back copies of 'Guns and Ammo'--I really dont think pepper spray is going to do the trick.
ReplyDeleteFWM: Merely demonstrating why the gunloons want it both ways.
" After all, if it is within a man's capacity to develop chemical or biological weapons--why can't those be claimed as self-defense weapons."
ReplyDeleteBecause, unlike fire arms, those are area effect weapons that cannot be discriminately employed.
It's going to be hard to make a case for self-defense with a weapon that harms your assailant and everyone in the surrounding area.
That's why bans and restrictions on explosives and full auto weapons have stood so long with little to no challenge.
First, if you agree Jefferson was a Deist, why did you call him an atheist? They aren't the same, you know. For the record, agnostics are not atheists, either, but it would have been more fitting to call him that.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, my thinking is sloppy? You offer that Jefferson is merely stating that "we want them because we want them"? Really?? Are you that dense?
"We hold these truths to be self evident."
He is stating that this is so obvious, anyone with an IQ above room temperature will understand that this is so. Have you just excluded yourself from our company with your statement of "we want them because we want them"?
Third, I never mentioned bears. You did. Re-read it, if you please.
Fourth, it is not regardless of the potential mate's preferences. That's the whole point. The female may fight off the agressive male if she feels he's not a worthy mate. It does happen, and happens often.
As to your questions:
1. Who says that it does stop at firearms? I did not. Nor did I go so far as to protray Weapons of Mass Destruction as weapons for self defense. Gee, I wonder who brought up that straw man?
2. No. I made no such ridiculous claim. As I pointed out above, the female has her own right to self defense, and many times the female will fight off a male that she feels is unworthy.
The continuation of a species in nature requires that one half of the species must attempt to mate with the other half. In most cases, it falls to the males to "make their move." In some cases, the female will be more aggressive (biological clock, and all that).
In some cases, the males attempt to show off, in some cases the males attract attention via coloring and "dance," in some cases the males fight each other, in some cases the males attack (rape, as you say it) the female, and in some cases the males risk their very lives merely on the hope that the female won't kill them for daring to come too close. Birds will exhibit the first and second forms of mate gathering. Just because they don't resort to violence (as we see it) to successfully mate, doesn't mean that we hold them as more civilized or better than deer, cows, or black widows.
Jade, you seem to be pulling the Nuke/Anthrax argument out of your rear again. Since no one here is asking for personal stash of anthrax, it would seem your reasoning for wanting to steer the conversation in that direction is because your argument against guns for self-defense is weak. You have a much better time arguing against chemical and biological weapons for self-defense, so you do. But who are you arguing with?
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you try to rape a tiger, she would probably use her claws and teeth against you. I am not sure where you are going with that.
Aztecred: “It's going to be hard to make a case for self-defense with a weapon that harms your assailant and everyone in the surrounding area.”
Including you, the wielder.
Anon: There simply is no difference between saying we "hold these truths to be self-evident" and "we want them because we want them."
ReplyDeleteThink for a moment. If your physics teacher asked you why force equals mass times acceleration--about the worst answer you could give is 'I hold it to be self-evident.'
In historical context, Jefferson was declaring to the King of England--as well as to those in America and elsewhere--why America felt the need to separate itself from England. An explanation usually requires some sort of evidence or reason beyond 'Hey, I'm entitled to all these rights because I want them.'
WRT animals--many animals do use their self-defense mechanisms to battle competitors for mates. And most of the time, the female has no say in the matter.
Very, very sloppy thinking on your part. Especially when you bring up the biological clock. And you ignored the fact that in nature most every animal will use its inherent weapons to kill, indiscriminantly, if hungry or if it perceives a threat that may not exist.
Your argument is inconsistent. On one hand, you claim man has a right to develop weapons to defend himself. OTOH, you decide, arbitrarily, this right somehow stops at firearms.
Because, unlike fire arms, those are area effect weapons that cannot be discriminately employed.
ReplyDeleteAgain, if your perceived enemy is going to have large numbers and massive amounts of firepower--you're really going to take them on with your 9mm?
"Again, if your perceived enemy is going to have large numbers and massive amounts of firepower--you're really going to take them on with your 9mm?"
ReplyDeleteThat would make me just as well armed as the average politician.
"If your physics teacher asked you why force equals mass times acceleration--about the worst answer you could give is 'I hold it to be self-evident.'"
ReplyDeleteSo, you've decided to reveal that your IQ is actually lower than room temperature, eh?
It wouldn't just be the worst answer, it would also be the wrong answer, since physics is a science with hard and fast rules governing things such as force, mass and acceleration. There are mathematical equations by which we may derive the answers.
Whereas, the notion of rights (natural or God given or whatever) is more philosophical in nature (pardon the pun). There's room for disagreement, but with math and science, there's only one right answer, usually.
In the particular case of Jefferson's self evident truths, which ones exactly do you believe are wrong (or not self evident)? Be specific.
WRT animals--Females have very much to say on the matter. In many cases, throughout many species the females is bigger than the male. This is especially true amongst the arthropods. They can and do decide whom gets to mate with them.
As for "ignoring" that animals use their inherent weapons to kill, of course they do. They are animals, and they have a survival instinct. Eat, defend, survive, procreate. That's their instinct. The only thing that matters is survival, and procreation. Everything else is details that serve those two goals. And it's largely irrelevant.
The only relevance that has to this discussion is that animals have the sense to preserve their lives, and they make use with whatever nature provided for them. We too have the sense to protect ourselves to preserve our lives, and we too make use of what nature has provided us.
Lastly, my argument is not inconsistent. At no point did I ever say that "man has a right to develop weapons to defend himself" but then go on to say that I "decide, arbitrarily, this right somehow stops at firearms."
I defy you to pinpoint where I said that. I didn'y even come close to suggesting that. In fact, I utterly and totally disagree with it.
I wonder if FatWhiteMan isn't correct about you and your meds.
Anonymous: “Lastly, my argument is not inconsistent. At no point did I ever say that "man has a right to develop weapons to defend himself" but then go on to say that I "decide, arbitrarily, this right somehow stops at firearms." I defy you to pinpoint where I said that. I didn'y even come close to suggesting that. In fact, I utterly and totally disagree with it.”
ReplyDeleteWelcome to Arguing With Jadegold 101.
Lastly, my argument is not inconsistent. At no point did I ever say that "man has a right to develop weapons to defend himself" but then go on to say that I "decide, arbitrarily, this right somehow stops at firearms."
ReplyDeleteI see.
So when you write: "It is through arms and training that humans, as the top of the food chain, so to speak, may defend their lives most effectively. To deny humans the means to use, keep, and bear those arms is going against nature."--you aren't saying man has a right to develop weapons. And you're saying that firearms aren't arms.
Gotcha.
No, apparently you don't "gotcha."
ReplyDeleteGoodness you're daft, aren't you?
When I stated "It is through arms and training that humans, as the top of the food chain, so to speak, may defend their lives most effectively. To deny humans the means to use, keep, and bear those arms is going against nature..."---I was indeed saying that man has a right to develop and use tools, including weapons.
Further, I was necessarily including firearms in the category of arms. What I never did, and still have not done, was to limit that to only firearms.
You added the category of WMD, as though it should logically follow, but I never did that--nor do I concede that it should. If you want to make that case, it's your straw man.
I also do not limit it to firearms. There may be future weapons that allow for discriminate self defense use. We should also be able to keep and bear those weapons, as our technology advances.
Let me clarify that for you, as you seem unable to grasp simple concepts:
All living things have a natural inherent right to live, and to defend their lives.
Man has the natural ability to make tools, including guns.
Because we do not have the natural inherent weapons that other apex predators and other species have, but we do have tool-making capabilites, imagination and opposable thumbs, we can make guns and use them.
Therefore, it follows that since we are naturally able to do this (make tools), it must be inherent to us, as a species.
Clear enough? Yeah, probably not. Let me get some crayons from my kids, and I'll draw you a picture....
Anon: You keep claiming all these "inherent" rights without a shred of evidence as to why they're inherent. IOW, you're basically saying you want them because you want want them.
ReplyDeleteIt's akin to someone claiming they have an inherent right to yacht because it's part of the happiness that Jefferson claimed as a truth.
You repeat your claim that because man can do this or that then it is inherent to us as a species. Consider the possibilities before engaging in such silly logic.
Jadegoof, you're being this stupid on purpose, right? I mean, are you this much of blockhead in real life, or do you save it all for the internet?
ReplyDeleteYou know what, never mind -- Yes, that's what I'm claiming. Everyone get a yacht, because we want one, except if you don't, then you're entitled to a Ferrari, but only a green one. Glad you understand. You win the internetz with your awesome display of circumlocutory logic. Because you managed to convince me with your repeated refusal to even begin to get a glimpse of a clue, I acknowledge your correctness and will turn over all my guns to the nearest cop.
Wow, I can feel my 'guilt' as a gun owner fading away already.....