The "right" these gun nuts keep talking about is this:
right to life
right to self defense (to protect life)
right to own a particular inanimate object called a gun
This bizarre and wild jump from the second proposition to the third is what they refer to as "the right." It's total made-up bullshit. Furthermore the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with it. They hijacked the amendment for their crazy argument and repeated it a million times until it took on a life of its own. But, it just ain't so. There is no "right" to own guns.
They tend to confuse "right" with "ability"--Just because you have the ability to do something does not give one the right to do so.
ReplyDeleteI would also add that the French Revolution and following "Terror" are an example of the concept of natural rights taken to extremes.
The French Revolution is an example of what happens when rights are subject to majority opinion. The American Revolution illustrates a movement that values rights.
DeleteThe American Revolution that supported slavery and refused to outlaw slavery in its "all men are created equal" proclamation.
DeleteYeah, Greg, your rah-rah jingoism doesn't fly around here.
DeleteNeither revolution got things completely right, but ours did the better job of recognizing rights, and we corrected the error of slavery. Ours was a case of excellent principles that took time to be absorbed.
DeleteSlavery wasn't the only error that your demi-gods installed in our baby republic. Women had about the same rights as slaves, remember?
DeleteMikeb, we've talked about that many times. You should understand my position by now.
DeleteYes, your own words have proven you to be a racist and antisemite.
DeleteLet's see:
DeleteI have repeatedly corrected Mikeb about the false idea that slavery was a right of the slaveholder. I hold the Jewish people in high regard for their cultural tradition of scholarship and for their tenacity. I don't regard one group of people as superior to another by virtue of genetics.
Where's the racism?
That's why you always use "slave states" and agree comparing a Mayors attempt to ask questions of a gun maker is like Nazis in Germany and continue to say if Jews had guns they would have stopped the Nazis, even though the Nazis could not be stopped by multiple countries and that the Jews did have guns. Next racist bigoted lies.
DeleteCalling states that violate rights "slave states" isn't racist. It's pointing out the kinship of all violations of rights. That usage comes from Robert Farago, a Jew, by the way. And saying that had a group of people been armed, they could have mounted a much more effective resistance isn't racist either, unless you consider it racist to say that people can defend themselves, given the chance.
DeleteCan't read either. THEY HAD GUNS BY THE THOUSANDS AND WERE MASSACRED.
DeleteWhat a lying criminal bigoted antisemite lying coward.
Except "they" did not have guns by the thousands, if you're referring to the Jews. The German people do bear responsibility for allowing Hitler to do what he did.
DeleteIn the ghetto alone Jews had over 5,000 guns. Your lack of knowledge, or denial of the facts as an antisemite are showing. Another lie to add to your long list of lies. Jews all over Europe had guns. Formed military groups and attacked the Nazis. Thanks for proving again that you are a lying coward antisemetic bigoted jack ass.
DeleteMike- surely you can accept that according to the latest Supreme Court rulings, the Constitution does grant an individual right to keep and bear arms. That means that in order for someone not to have this right they must have been convicted of a crime that results in the loss or restrictions of their rights.
ReplyDeleteAnd before 2008, what, the right didn't exist? What exactly do the Supreme Court decisions have to do with it?
DeleteMikeb, it's your side that claims that the courts and governments grant us our rights. Anonymous here is pointing out that according to your beliefs, we now have the right.
DeleteI do think the courts interpret what "rights" are, but they're subject to politics and corruption and human error. The way slavery went and then the subjugation of women, so will the notion of gun rights go.
DeletePlaying the game of odd man out? Two of those three involved denying individual rights, while the third involves protecting individual rights.
DeleteYeah, like the rights of the 20 Newtown kids and their families. That's what you fucking rights do. Nancy and Adam had rights and look what happened. You should be ashamed of yourself for being on the wrong side of this argument.
DeleteI'm not on the wrong side here. All rights come with risks. We understand that allowing people to make choices means that some of them will make bad ones. But the consequences of not allowing choices are much worse.
DeleteThe consequences of a bad choice with a gun, is death. If I make a bad choice with my free speech right, at least no one dies.
Delete"If I make a bad choice with my free speech right, at least no one dies. "
DeletePerhaps you should tell that to Theo Van Gogh.
"The film's release sparked much furor, and Mohammed Bouyeri, a member of the Hofstad Group, assassinated Van Gogh in an Amsterdam street on 2 November 2004. A letter pinned to Van Gogh's body with a knife was primarily a death threat to Hirsi Ali."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali#Going_into_hiding
All rights come with a cost.
Not all those costs are equal. You make a silly comparison. More people have died from guns in our civilian society, than all the dead in all our wars. Another deceitful tactic by you, that proves nothing. Are all military as dishonest as you?
DeleteTo use your line, Mikeb, we've refuted this before. If you accept the first two rights, the third is derived from them. What's the point of having the right to self-defense without an effective means of applying that right? But you left out the right to property.
ReplyDeleteWhat we see here is that the right to own and carry firearms is derived from more fundamental rights. That in no way negates the right to own and carry firearms.
Your stupid argument is that government does not give rights. So laughable, it's just another lie from an uneducated lying bigot antsemite.
DeleteAs usual you're full of it, Greg. Who's to say an RPG is not the necessary inanimate object required to adequately protect my home and hearth?
DeleteIf you can show me how an RPG can be used without harming innocents, let's discuss that. However, explosive devices are clearly a separate class of weapon.
DeleteWell it CAN be, just like a shotgun or a handgun CAN be. The problem with all of it is they often are not used without harming innocents.
DeleteAn RPG is an explosive device. Those are in a different class from firearms. But as I said, show me how one can be used in a legitimate way that harms no innocent person.
DeleteIt can be used safely in exactly the same way a handgun can. You're idea about what inanimate objects are included in your bizarre interpretation of the 2A is completely arbitrary.
DeleteMikeb, an RPG is designed to bring down aircraft or destroy tanks. It's not designed for individual combat. Study the matter, would you?
DeleteBut I thought you subscribed to that wacky idea that the 2A rights are there just in case the government comes around with its tanks to intimidate you into giving up the guns. When that day comes you'll need an RPG, or did I miss something?
DeleteThat's a minor part of gun rights, and somehow, I don't think you're interested in discussing the tactics of asymmetrical warfare.
DeleteMike, whenever the Supreme Court makes a decision affecting the enforcement of rights, there are likely people out there saying that the amendment was hijacked. There were probably a lot of Democrats out there lamenting Brown vs The Board of Education too.
ReplyDeleteThere was a long period of time where the interpretation was that the Second was a collective right, and that has changed recently when it was determined to be an individual right.
I wonder how people protected life and property before guns?
ReplyDeleteSwords, bows and arrows, clubs, etc. Weapons have been around since Cain picked up a rock and beat his brother's head in.
DeleteThen we don't need guns, do we?
DeleteAnonymous, guns exist. We can't simply wish them away. And guns are used by several hundred thousand good people to defend themselves every year.
DeleteThat's a lie of the gross exaggeration type.
DeleteNO, a lie from the site liar, really!
DeleteWhen the CDC and National Academies of Science back up what I said, how is that a lie?
DeleteBecause they're wrong and it's been proven to you. The Professor did the best job of it, but it's been shown in many ways in many different posts.
DeletePlease show your facts that back up the statement that: "several hundred thousand good people to defend themselves every year."
Deletehttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18319
DeleteI downloaded it when it was free. Apparently, you'll have to pay or find someone with a copy.
I'll have to pay for your proof that you are not lying. That's funny. Thanks for proving you have no proof, just another scam con artist. Do you own this site I must pay for your proof? Isn't this public records? If not why not. Police records are public records, right? Thanks, I needed a laugh today.
Delete