Gun Control V3.0

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Master_SweetPea, Aug 1, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    If you have a credit card, mortgage or loan, or if you bought a car or a house or entered into a lease or hired a DVD or rented some equipment etc etc ad nauseum ad nauseum you have entered into agreements that confer rights and obligations on the parties that are enforceable.

    Those agreements transfer property, not rights. Buying a car, for example, makes that car your property, but it doesn't "give" you the right to use your property as you see fit--you already had that right. Another example would be renting equipment from someone. Renting property does not "give" rights either--you are only extended privileges by the owner of whatever it is you are renting.

    ...I guess the answer is those 'rights' existed only as 'ideals' and had no force or authority before those documents were written. Can those rights have the force of law?

    In the absence of laws that protect your rights, the task falls to you as an individual. In other words, if the government won't defend your rights, you have to do it yourself. That's one of many reasons the second amendment exists.

    Free education and whatnot I don't know where you got that from...

    That would be from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 25 states that everyone has the right to an "adequate" standard of living, and Article 26 states that everyone has a right to education. That is not true. Could you walk up to a millionaire, say, "Pay my tuition for me," and legally force them to do so? Of course not. That person's money is their property, and you don't have any right to anyone else's property. So my question is this: If it's not right for you to do that, how does it magically become right when the government does it?
  2. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    What is 'property' except rights? Right to own, possess, the right to alienate, mortgage, charge, gift etc etc.

    The concept of ownership of property and the concept of 'rights' are mutually inclusive and are necessarily socially constructed concepts - they do not exist in nature.

    Whatever limitations or freedoms you experience in your life are a result of the society in which you live - the social structure of your existence. You have a right to bear arms because there is a law that says you have that right. That law was created to reflect the normative societal values relating to gun ownership in your country.

    That right did not exist in Dimension X before it became law.



  3. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    You have a right to bear arms because there is a law that says you have that right. That law was created to reflect the normative societal values relating to gun ownership in your country.

    This is where I agree with Fred. It's not just a law that grants the right to bear arms, it's contained in the Bill of Rights, which forms the foundation of US society.

    The Constituion is tied to America. You simply can't have one without the other, so in a sense, when America the nation was created, the Constitution listed rights that were available to the citizens within.

    Maybe it's a concept that doesn't translate exactly into other countries, but it's an important point.
  4. Loopster Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Sep 26, 2000
    star 4
    Is America tied to the Constitution though? Has the Contitution been altered since it's inception?
  5. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    That was my quote you are agreeing with Mr44! At least I think you are agreeing with it.
  6. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    That was my quote you are agreeing with Mr44! At least I think you are agreeing with it

    No, not completely... :(

    I was actually expanding on your statement, and promoting the Bill of Rights above normal law, in the sense that the Constitution is what laws are judged against.
  7. Master_SweetPea Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2002
    star 4
    "The concept of ownership of property and the concept of 'rights' are mutually inclusive and are necessarily socially constructed concepts - they do not exist in nature."

    *edit* OOPS hit the submit when I meant to hit preview

    Well I'm afraid that animals do in fact belive in owning territory.
    Dogs mark their areas with sent. Panters, like the kind we have in Florida, walk around "thier" land to protect if from other panthers etc.

    As for rights, the right to self-defense is exercised by almost any large animal, try getting inbetween a black bear and her cubs. I'll watch.

    This is not any sort of proof but just an example that nature is not a good model for civilization.

    I come from the idealology that men (human beings) are born free and have "free will"
    and as long as my actions do not hurt someone else then they are usually not a problem and thefore should not be illegal in the eyes of the state.

    gotta go and study for a test. later ya'll

    *edit again, One quick thought, There is NO LAW that grants a woman a right to an abortion, yet so many consider it a "right"
    what's the difference? Not trying to derail, but this is a rights issue.
  8. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    What is 'property' except rights?

    I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please be more specific.

    The concept of ownership of property and the concept of 'rights' are mutually inclusive and are necessarily socially constructed concepts - they do not exist in nature.

    Humans are not a part of nature? Our species is somehow "unnatural"? You know better... :p

    You have a right to bear arms because there is a law that says you have that right.

    Wrong. I have the right to bear arms because I have the right to self-defense. Laws that infringe upon my rights do not affect me. I will obtain whatever arms I desire--easily--and the government has no say in the matter...because it is a right, and when I choose to exercise it, the government has a Constitutional duty to stand aside.

    That right did not exist in Dimension X before it became law.

    This is another misunderstanding of what rights are. As I have said before, laws made by humans cannot affect rights, because rights are beyond human authority to give or take away. If a country allows slavery to exist within its borders, does that mean the people in that country do not have the right to liberty? Of course not. We know they have that right--their government simply refuses to recognize it.

    Is America tied to the Constitution though?

    The American government certainly is...or was. [face_plain]
  9. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Humans are clearly part of nature but what I said was the 'concept' of ownership of property and the concept of 'rights' are socially constructed.

    If you purchase land the deed or title that is passed to you is really the physical evidence of a right of ownership. That is what property is - the right to own, the right occupy, the right to transfer, mortgage or otherwise deal with that property as you see fit. When you buy property you are not just buying a lump of dirt per se or a car or a watch, you are acquiring property rights over those things to the exclusion of all others.

    That is what property is - the acquisition of rights. That is also the fundamental basis of patents and trade marks and copyright and other forms of intellectual property.

    Whilst dogs and panthers clearly mark their territory they obviously do not have the same concept of ownership as we humans do. A panther will tear your leg off if you intrude on its territory because that is its inherent self defense reflex the "fight or flight" reflex- it does not do so because of any concept of infingement of its rights of ownership or possession. A bear will also tear your arms off if threatened not because it feels it exercising its right to self defence but because of the flight or fight reflex.

    That is why I said that the concept of ownership of property and the concept of 'rights' do not exist in nature.

    But anyway - we are talking past each other so I'll give it up.
  10. JediBunny Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jan 13, 2005
    once again just for the reccord,
    I think the people need the ability to overthrow the Government.
    It's the final test of weather or not a government is just and fair.
  11. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I'm not sure what you mean by that statement?

    If the KKK was better organized, and it hypothetically overthrew the US government, would it make their actions "just and fair?"

    How about the 1979 Islamist revolution in Iran? It's no secret that the Shah wasn't particularly fair, but was Khomeini any more so?

    What about Allende vs Pincochet back in 1973?

    I think I understand the sentiment of what your statement represents, that a government derives its ability to govern from consent of the people, but is revolution the only way to safeguard this concept?
  12. Master_SweetPea Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2002
    star 4
    maybe not the only way, but I think it's a good way!

    On to current events. One of the Jonesboro shooters is going free, now that he is of age.
    The Jonesboro was a really nasty precursor to Colombine.
    Two boys stole a car drove to a grandparents house, broke the cover of his gun cabinet,
    went to thier school, pulled the fire alarm, then waited in the bushes.
    As the kids came out into the lawn in rank and file the doors to the halls automatically locked behind them
    , then the two little punks opened fire.
    I don't remember how many people died, but the whole thing was bad.

    Now if the Boys had been shot by a resource officer back in 1998, it would have been "a sad day in America, that a law officer shoots a child"
    yet now a boy who killed many is going free...

    it just doesn't seem right to me.
  13. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    I think the people need the ability to overthrow the Government.
    It's the final test of weather or not a government is just and fair.


    Don't the people already have that ability in the form of something called "elections"?
  14. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Don't the people already have that ability in the form of something called "elections"?

    And if those in power don't surrender after loosing an election?
  15. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Then the people should storm the Whitehouse and throw the bums out [face_beatup]
  16. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Yes sir, absolutely.

    But you had best be well armed when you do that.
  17. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Has this ever happened in the history of the United States?
  18. Master_SweetPea Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2002
    star 4
  19. Master_SweetPea Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2002
    star 4
    [image=http://orifice.net/cave/9516.jpg]
    So a shoe string can be a machine gun...
    we really need to pass HR 1603 .
    This bill, if it becomes a law. would require the B.A.T.F. to tape all it's
    firearms tests .
    So how could anyone oppose it?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.