Alcohol vs. firearm: what makes a right fundamental

[thenexttodie]

What is meant by fundamental right?

"fundamental rights" exist merely as an outcome of being charged by God to love one another and to not force evil on each other. This is why you don't know what fundamental rights are.

I might assert that it is my fundamental right to do what I like with my own body but if I stand on a street corner and light up a joint I can be arrested.

There is no right to do what ever you want with your body. You don't have a right to do drugs either.

Where does that right exist other than as something I insist ought to be the case?

You don't get to decide what rights we should or should not have. They exist only as an outcome being created in Gods image and the charge he has over our lives. That is all.


Laurens you realize that if you are going to something to you own body which would cause you immediate harm or death, people (even bad people) will probably try to stop you, possibly putting their own selves in danger in the process. Perhaps this might help you understand what is and what is not a "fundamental right".

You also don't have a right do drugs. The reason why you do drugs is to get high. When you are high on drugs you become a danger to yourself and others because you lose your ability to function rationally and physically.

 

[Laurens]

What is meant by fundamental right?

"fundamental rights" exist merely as an outcome of being charged by God to love one another and to not force evil on each other. This is why you don't know what fundamental rights are.

I might assert that it is my fundamental right to do what I like with my own body but if I stand on a street corner and light up a joint I can be arrested.

There is no right to do what ever you want with your body. You don't have a right to do drugs either.

Where does that right exist other than as something I insist ought to be the case?

You don't get to decide what rights we should or should not have. They exist only as an outcome being created in Gods image and the charge he has over our lives. That is all.


Laurens you realize that if you are going to something to you own body which would cause you immediate harm or death, people (even bad people) will probably try to stop you, possibly putting their own selves in danger in the process. Perhaps this might help you understand what is and what is not a "fundamental right".

You also don't have a right do drugs. The reason why you do drugs is to get high. When you are high on drugs you become a danger to yourself and others because you lose your ability to function rationally and physically.

Just to clarify, having said all that, do you think you have a fundamental right to own a firearm?

Also something tells me you've never smoked a joint

 

[Grumpy Santa]

What is meant by fundamental right?

"fundamental rights" exist merely as an outcome of being charged by God to love one another and to not force evil on each other. This is why you don't know what fundamental rights are.

Those "fundamental rights" didn't seem so fundamental when the same god you assert ordered people butchered and murdered.

 

[tuxbox]

I apologize for not responding sooner, but I've been in really bad shape lately. I will try to address the questions asked of me prior to this post when I can.

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1489&context=wmlr

According to this paper, gun ownership was pretty high in early America. Which seems a little strange if the 2nd Amendment only applied to militias (which it doesn’t). After the Revolutionary War, gun ownership takes a big hit. In the 1720’s the Providence probate listed gun ownership at 52%. Fifty-two percent is still pretty high though.


http://www.madisonbrigade.com/g_mason.htm

"...to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

James Madison, I believe is considered the “Father of the Bill of Rights.” The Second Amendment and the part the Militia would play into the defense of the states, can be found in the Federalist Papers 29.


http://bearingarms.com/glyon/2013/10/05/madison-on-the-2nd-amendment-milita-clause/

This is an interesting article, which is lacking any references to back up any of the material in the article. So, I take this one with a grain of salt. However, it did lead me the Federalist paper 29, which is also an interesting read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

Two of the earliest U.S. Supreme Court cases, in which their rulings basically stated that the Federal Government could not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, and that it was up to the states to regulate that right (unless I’m reading them incorrectly). However, the right to keep and bear arms exist, according to these two cases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

These two cases pretty much put the final nail in the coffin of the “only for Militia crowd.“

https://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2008/06/39-states-have-constitutional.html

It appears that every time the Left goes after the Second Amendment, that it is struck down by the courts, whereas the courts side with individual rights, and not collective rights.

Furthermore, how is it that if the Second Amendment only applies to Militias that so many Americans have individually owned by non-Militia members. Also, remember that our Second Amendment was influenced from England’s Bill of Rights from the 17 Century?

Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[Visaki]

"fundamental rights" exist merely as an outcome of being charged by God to love one another and to not force evil on each other. This is why you don't know what fundamental rights are.

Those "fundamental rights" didn't seem so fundamental when the same god you assert ordered people butchered and murdered.

God doesn't do rights, it does might.

 

[tuxbox]

But then the question simply changes to "What makes a right "natural"? Particularly since you consider owning a firearm a natural right but firearms are not exactly a long part of the planet's history, not even in mankind's history.

And as I mentionned to Grumpy, discussing how rights, wether fundamental or natural, are regulated, is another complicated line of discussion in this topic.

A "Natural RIght" would be the rights of an individual lost in a rain forest with no one to help for miles and miles away. That individual would have the right to create shelter from the elements, create tools for fishing, hunting and self-defense. Obviously, that individual will be limited to what he/she are able to create based on skill, and they would make the best tools possible given the circumstance and resources around them. That's the best I can come up with at this time.

Take this for exemple: "Firearms are "tools", we "have the right" to use them to protect ourselves".
By that standard, shouldn't everybody be allowed the very best tool available to them do defend themselves? Wouldn't that give a person the right to any "tool" they see as their best possible defense?

Not really. Most reasonable people know that when they are part of a society that some "Natural Rights" have to be forfeit in order to maintain peace.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I apologize for not responding sooner, but I've been in really bad shape lately. I will try to address the questions asked of me prior to this post when I can.

I'm concerned that any disagreement I, and others, have with you on this issue may exacerbate your condition, and - dare I say - make whatever time you have left with your loved ones less peaceful than you might wish and/or have hoped.

If that's the case, just tell us to shut up, and we'll stop pushing back.

[Even if we still disagree. ]

Kindest regards,

James

 

[MarsCydonia]

What is meant by fundamental right? I might assert that it is my fundamental right to do what I like with my own body but if I stand on a street corner and light up a joint I can be arrested.

Where does that right exist other than as something I insist ought to be the case?

That is the question asked. Have you seen any satisfactory answer?

 

[MarsCydonia]

[I apologize for not responding sooner, but I've been in really bad shape lately. I will try to address the questions asked of me prior to this post when I can.

Hope you are doing better.

A "Natural RIght" would be the rights of an individual lost in a rain forest with no one to help for miles and miles away. That individual would have the right to create shelter from the elements, create tools for fishing, hunting and self-defense. Obviously, that individual will be limited to what he/she are able to create based on skill, and they would make the best tools possible given the circumstance and resources around them. That's the best I can come up with at this time.

I don't see how those would be right, rather than actions that this individual could do. Even if he didn't have those "rights", what would prevent him from taking these actions?

Not really. Most reasonable people know that when they are part of a society that some "Natural Rights" have to be forfeit in order to maintain peace.

If they can be forfeited, then I don't see how they are natural rights rather than societal/legal rights.

 

[MarsCydonia]

There is no right to do what ever you want with your body. You don't have a right to do drugs either.

Says you.

 

[Laurens]

What is meant by fundamental right? I might assert that it is my fundamental right to do what I like with my own body but if I stand on a street corner and light up a joint I can be arrested.

Where does that right exist other than as something I insist ought to be the case?

That is the question asked. Have you seen any satisfactory answer?

Well I shall expand a bit on my thoughts on the matter.

I don't think any of us have any rights by default. Nothing in the nature of the universe says so, appeals to natural law don't make sense to me.

I think that we can approximate some kind of rights if we were to use a guideline, say how two perfectly rational beings would define their rights in order to live harmoniously with each other, but there is nothing to inherently say that this arbitrary definition of fundamental rights is anymore valid than saying governments decide what our rights are.

I can say I think we all have a right to do what we like with our bodies. But do we have that right? Or is it just my opinion that we ought to. I don't know that there is anything fundamental about what my opinion of our rights should be.

 

[thenexttodie]

Just to clarify, having said all that, do you think you have a fundamental right to own a firearm?

Yeah.

Also something tells me you've never smoked a joint

Only like once in the last 10 years. I took a couple hits off a joint to prove to some punk that I wasn't a cop. I probably should have just beat his ass. When I was young I used to smoke blunts, do lsd, all kinds of dumb shit.

 

[Laurens]

Just to clarify, having said all that, do you think you have a fundamental right to own a firearm?

Yeah.
.

So

When you are high on drugs you become a danger to yourself and others

Do you become a danger to yourself or others if you have a firearm?

 

[thenexttodie]

Those "fundamental rights" didn't seem so fundamental when the same god you assert ordered people butchered and murdered.

God has the authority to say "These people should die." I know you don't like that. God says we profane him by letting people live who should not live and killing people who should not die.

One reason why you know there is a God, is by observing the behavior of people who try to deny his existence. Atheists get it right every time. Don't kill murderers, but kill sick people and children and unborn babies.

The reason way you people don't understand what rights are is no mystery.

 

[thenexttodie]

Do you become a danger to yourself or others if you have a firearm?

No.

 

[Visaki]

Do you become a danger to yourself or others if you have a firearm?

No.

So no one, no where, never has accidently shot themselves or someone else?

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Those "fundamental rights" didn't seem so fundamental when the same god you assert ordered people butchered and murdered.

God has the authority to say "These people should die." I know you don't like that. God says we profane him by letting people live who should not live and killing people who should not die.

One reason why you know there is a God, is by observing the behavior of people who try to deny his existence. Atheists get it right every time. Don't kill murderers, but kill sick people and children and unborn babies.

The reason way you people don't understand what rights are is no mystery.

What authority? I didn't vote for him.

What's with the fallacious emotional argument? Kill sick people and children? You're confusing "atheist" with "Republican".

 

[Laurens]

Do you become a danger to yourself or others if you have a firearm?

No.

Can you justify that statement.

No one has ever been a danger to themselves or others with a firearm?

 

[tuxbox]

Greetings,


I'm concerned that any disagreement I, and others, have with you on this issue may exacerbate your condition, and - dare I say - make whatever time you have left with your loved ones less peaceful than you might wish and/or have hoped.

If that's the case, just tell us to shut up, and we'll stop pushing back.

[Even if we still disagree. ]

Kindest regards,

James

Thanks for the concern, but I think I can handle it... hehe

 

[tuxbox]

Hope you are doing better.

Thank you very much.

I don't see how those would be right, rather than actions that this individual could do. Even if he didn't have those "rights", what would prevent him from taking these actions?

You make very good points here, and I'm not sure how to counter.

If they can be forfeited, then I don't see how they are natural rights rather than societal/legal rights.

When people join the US military they forfeit several "rights' when they sign that dotted line and take the oath to serve. Just because we have "Natural Rights", does not mean that they can't be surrendered voluntarily, or taken away by force.