Gun "Logic" , The "Right" to Bear Arms?

Australians crack me up. Their government is a signatory to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which clearly states:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..."

So apparently the Aussie government says that Aussie citizens have inalienable rights but the Aussie citizens themselves reply, "Nu-uh, we're not having any of that!"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

So going to go back to believing in the "divine right of Kings"? At the time they thought it was a "natural right" along of course with "Droit Du Seigneur"
To continue the Wiki quote

 

Care to tell the founding Fathers your theory on Gun ownership??

{{{"""We need to find better ways to control access to firearms""}}

Hummmmmmmmm...., not only did I go through a State background check but before I was issued a CWP I went through a FBI background check, what more do you want???

{{"""Statistically her gun will end up in the hands of a criminal by some fairly large probability and increase her chances of dying by a firearm from it just being in the household"""}}}

Really??? And just where do you get this statistic??? First, that weapon along with over 2 dozen more are locked in a 600 pound gun safe. Second, I'll bet I can get to the only other weapon that's not locked up quicker than anybody can get into this house. From your screen name I take it that your from New York City, we live in the North West, TOTALLY different environment than back east.

Now I WILL side track you for a moment, I have been handling weapons for 60 years, been in the Military, was a reserve police officer for 3 years, have 3 son-in-laws in law enforcement with over 55 years combined service, and a grandson that's a prison guard. Do you really think you know more on the subject than I do?? Any weapon that is banned should only be banned on the way it functions, not the way it looks. Guns are no more problem than knives. Cars are a much larger problem than guns. Take out the drug related murders with guns and you will cut the murder rate with guns in half. If it wasn't guns it would be knives, cars, clubs, etc, etc, etc.

Now, if you DO live in New York, you have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, so tell us, how are they working?? IF guns are a problem there than more gun laws will NOT help.

 

I've spent some time in Australia. I would not say that they crack me up. I've come to like them a lot. Their worst trait is probably mimic'ing american dietary habits.. lol

 

*sigh* Read your link again. It says that "During the Age of Enlightenment, natural law theory challenged the divine right of kings". You equate natural rights with divine right and offer a link that puts the two squarely at odds with each other. This is too easy!

- - - Updated - - -

Captivating narrative, brethren.

 

To be honest, your first sentence inspired me to sorta dismiss it......because I'm talking about natural law as the philosophical construct pertaining to human nature....and you seem to be off on some tangent about physical laws of nature.

reword it.

 

Bower, your link also states:

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law."

Your country, Australia, is a signatory to that declaration that enshrines "natural rights". So you maintain that rights only exist when the government says they exist, yet your government says that they exist regardless. Quite the contradiction, wouldn't you say?

Also, I don't know whether it is humorous, sad, or terrifying that there are actual human beings arguing against human beings having certain inherent and inalienable rights. Bizarre.

 

Of course the childrens safty isn't as important as the veried sports programs to your way of thinking. (Hey, NYC, the cost of shipping sports teams from one school to another, and around the state, Drivers, busses, coaches, uniforms, gear, etc, etc, costs more than the police protection for our children would.) So we see how far your concern really extends for the children of this nation.

 

Bizarre, and were such a mentality to ever become the norm, MORE than dangerous. Totalitarianism, anyone?

 

Because, what? You want to serious think of the ramifications, but your scenarios aren't even serious.

Being a CCW user is not like just buying a gun. You have to take a computerized background check. You have to submit fingerprints. You have to attend firearm safety training. You have to take a handgun proficiency course. And above all, you have to pass.

None of this is required to actually own a gun. In order to be a CCW user, you have have a mental state of health and show competency.

There are even some states where you cannot have a permit unless the local authorities grants it to you. And as far as I know, there are only four states where owning a permit is not required to Carry and Conceal.

Are you being serious or are you just coming up with the silliest thing you can think of? The principal himself doesn't do background checks. The issuing authorities does the background check. It takes rigorous steps to even become a CCW permit holder. By 'not caring' the principal would just let any teacher use a gun.

Don't take your child on a plane. Don't take your child to a parade. Don't take your child into a bank. The armed security might snap and go on a rampage...

Well, that is your opinion. Whether you are willing to open your eyes or not is up to you. Your argument is merely stating that just because something is on paper doesn't make it a right. That's only because you have a poor understanding of what rights actually are.

 

Yeah, it's pretty messed up. We actually have Bowerbird here arguing that human beings don't have a right to be free from chattel slavery unless some government in their vicinity writes a law stating such.

 

Are you being purposefully dense here or have the semantics really confused you? He's talking about morality deduced using human reason and you're talking about physics.

 

Why are you arguing semantics? Call it whatever you want, the concept is still the same...but I'll play along.

Lets see what Messrs. Merriam and Webster say on the subject of the meaning of the word "natural":

Definition of NATURAL

1
: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>
2
a : being in accordance with or determined by nature
b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
3
a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : legitimate (2) : being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption <natural parents>
b : illegitimate <a natural child>
4
: having an essential relation with someone or something : following from the nature of the one in question <his guilt is a natural deduction from the evidence>
5
: implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn <a natural talent for art>
6
: of or relating to nature as an object of study and research
7
: having a specified character by nature <a natural athlete>
8
a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes>
b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <natural religion> <natural rights>
c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>
9
: possessing or exhibiting the higher qualities (as kindliness and affection) of human nature <a noble &#8230; brother &#8230; ever most kind and natural &#8212; Shakespeare>
10
a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow>
b : existing in or produced by nature : not artificial <natural turf> <natural curiosities>
c : relating to or being natural food
11
a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : unregenerate <natural man>
b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society
12
a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a natural person>
b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>
13
a : closely resembling an original : true to nature
b : marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint
c : having a form or appearance found in nature
14
a : having neither flats nor sharps <the natural scale of C major>
b : being neither sharp nor flat
c : having the pitch modified by the natural sign
15
: of an off-white or beige color
&#8212; nat·u·ral·ness noun​

In case you missed the bold type, definition number one is the one you want to read. Also, definition 8b.

 

the second amendment protects the right of the individual to keep and bear arms unconnected with any militia.

 

I've got to step out for a little while.....I'll let Aristotle and Locke explain my stance....

If you subscribe to that, (I think you may, but you seem to be buried in semantics) our positions on natural law and natural rights align.

I bolded Locke's last sentence because I'm atheist....and in regards to "God" appointing one man over another,
or any "creator" endowed natural rights..... I don't recognize any anthropomorphic deity, considering nature itself my "creator"

 

I believe that I already stated what natural rights are. What did you find insufficient about my previous explanation? (Also, 8b is actually a closer definition than 1 is, look to that)


I'll walk you through it. Do you think that a person has an inherent right to protect their person from harm?

 

This must be addressed.

There is no occasion where maliciously violating another human being's natural rights can be defined any other way than wrong or immoral.......It can be justified under some "common good" construct..... as in the case of war, or throwing the feeble old lady out of the life boat to lighten the load..... but it is always wrong and immoral.

Where beard scratchers who argue that morality is a "subjective" concept err,
is they rarely, if ever account for the opinion of the victim who's being tossed in the volcano.

 

Actually, our legal framework states individuals retain any powers not delegated to either the State of federal governments.

 

Why are they not serious scenarios? Try to prove it in words, I've given you three posts to do so and still you really just saying "because I say so".

I agree that this kind of thing helps a lot but it's not perfect. That is my point. Even a 1% fail rate would ruin any gains. It's just too risky.

That is quite different. The exposure rate is much lower.

 

Yes, there must be some shared morality most of which has been handed down in the form of tales, stories, cuniform, cave drawings, religious documents, etc. Those who believe in so-called 'moral relativity' can only do so within a greater sphere of shared morality.

 

I've already told you. You really don't take the time to read what I am writing to you. More of that 10 year forum debating experiences we've heard so much about, I suppose.

They're not serious scenarios simply because they are simply half baked ideas. You come up with any terrible ramification you can think of, and use this as consideration of why a particular policy cannot work instead of actually thinking things through. For example, 'What if the principal doesn't care about background checks for teachers with CCW?' A principal is in-charge of the school and all the lives in it. What exactly would make you think that the principal wouldn't care about the safety the children or teachers.

Even if it is true that a principal doesn't care about the lives of those you work and attend the school, there is something he or she must care about more. Like, keeping the job. And keeping the job would entail that the principal must do what is best for the well-being of the school. Even if the principal doesn't personally care about the students or teachers.

Simply put, your scenarios are poorly thought out.

You yourself acknowledge that this idea is not perfect while coming up with the perfect scenario of how everything can go wrong? Interesting logic.

How is the exposure rate much lower?