posted
Individual rights not "common good" desires. Individual liberty and individual rights. True, a society devoid of individual responsibility cannot maintain individual liberty, as we are witnessing unfold today. The basis of American society is the rights of the individual, not the needs of the whole. If you can argue that health care is a right and thus compulsory for the betterment of the whole and taken over by the state - your rationale could twist the right to bear arms can be taken away from the individual for an armed government police force for the betterment of all. Single payer is no choice yet a need provided by the government. You can't argue the individual has the right to arms by stating if he needs armed protection he can call the police.
Could you argue the right to religion requires you observe the government's sanctioned religion and pay a tythe to the state religion?
Would anyone argue that the right to vote requires you to vote for the government's preferred candidate?
Would you ever be convinced that your right to speech is a protection from speech not desired by the government and a dictate to only speak in the manner dictated by the government?
No individual right can also be an individual mandate imposed by law, fine and imprisonment. If there is no choice, there is no right.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Simba died of cancer a year later. Disney just didn't tell you.
edit: wow that makes no sense if you didn't see Armoth's post at the bottom of the last page...
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Why is bearing arms a right? To me I read it as more as the right to have a well armed sanctioned militia not rambo hunters with armored piercing incinderary rounds for their Anti-Material rifles.
IP: Logged |
quote:The discussion would likely be more productive if you agreed to let the semantic point go, and say "Ok Lisa, just do /s/right/entitlement/, and we'll do the opposite".
Or you could make the distinction that is commonly made by philosophers between "natural right" and "legal rights".
i would argue the following: if there is no god or god-like figure to endow man with rights, its reasonable to say man is simply the dominate species of the planet. and since rights (especially the rights were currently discussing) dont exist in nature its reasonable to say that rights are a construct of man. therefore all rights are technically "legal" rights* and legal rights are subjective and can vary depending on the society and/or government (legal institution established by the people).
*i only believe in natural law according to the strict sense of the word, as it pertains to the "natural order of things" (choice/consequence, action/reaction). i admit to this philosophic conviction. its open to discussion.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fortunately, America was founded on the principle that we are "endowed by our creator" certain rights. Once people move away from inalienable rights to a concept of rights granted by the government, they can be taken away. According to your "natural order of things" logic, we should still have slaves. Luckily Africans have inalienable rights. According to your "natural order of things", women wouldn't have the right to vote. I'm glad we are not ruled by the masses but by laws based upon principles of individual inalienable rights.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Why is bearing arms a right? To me I read it as more as the right to have a well armed sanctioned militia not rambo hunters with armored piercing incinderary rounds for their Anti-Material rifles.
You are on one side of that ongoing debate. I'm glad the supreme court has ruled against your opinion. But once the people are convinced that guns are for hunting and not protection, all the gov needs to do is outlaw hunting to take away guns. The right to bear arms was put in place as a last defense against a tyrannical government. (I know stating that fact might put me on a watch list, but it is the truth) Reminds me, I need to buy some more rounds, I could get another 1000 for $200. Bargain for an item that doesn't spoil and only increases in value.
By the way...."militia" were armed civilians who volunteered to serve during the revolution. A revolution that probably wouldn't have been won without them. Militia weren't military yet our founders understood the importance of an armed citizenry. An aggressor might beat our army but they would have a problem with the citizens, so long as they are armed.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
