No right is absolute

[nadinbrzezinski]

And as far as the second Ammendment early in our history we had a rebellion put down by the Army, under the direct command of the CiC. I think one George Washington had a clue about that, maybe as a founder, he still needed the NRA and Scalia to tell him what he meant.

We already have limits on speech, famously not being able to scream fire in a crowded theater. There are others, such as libel and defamation, but suggest reasonable laws, such as closing the gun show loop sends fans of the second into fits.

Part of the reason is that things reasonable people agree upon, such as background checks, are transformed into fear campaigns of they will take my guns. These are fear campaigns, period.

We average 20 mass shootings a year, per the Brady campaign, and major incidents are happening more and more often.

I will repeat this, no right is absolute, yet none is comming to grab your guns. The NRA is no longer rational, and we need some rational limits...as in background checks that will keep guns from mentally insane, and people who served time in prison.

We also need access to mental health care... And we will need to sooner or later reconsider this policy

But we have 34 people murdered a day, and 40% of all sales are not screened in a background check.

But hey...

Oh and we own guns... But I am in favor of background checks for all who buy a fire arm.

I expect this to go nowhere, so let the killing continue, since the 2nd Ammendment, I am told, is absolute.

[sadbear]

1. That's funny

because I know A LOT of places, here in Amurika, where even the 1st Amendment is not absolute. Right?

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Exactly my point

It's not absolute anywhere...if I went and libeled you, you could sue me.

[sadbear]

7. And I could get fired for posting shit on facebook.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. There you go

But propose a simple background check...

[Indydem]

88. Do you even know what the First Amendment is?

It doesn't give you the right to keep your job if you post dumb shit on Facebook.

It means the government can't punish you.

[sadbear]

117. That's right.

The 1st Amendment has limits, doesn't it?

[DocMac]

122. Too late.

We know who you are. You'll be working 12 hours come Monday!

[dickthegrouch]

202. My right to go anywhere I please without being hurt is absolute

I don't care that the law doesn't support that - IT SHOULD.

No-one else has a right to harm me. Sometimes though, the way the law in the US is structured it seems like the only right anyone else has is precisely to harm me (and for me or my heirs to sue after the fact). That is not good enough for supposedly the most powerful, advanced country on earth. It's actually pretty pathetic as are the people who defend the status quo.

[nadinbrzezinski]

203. Your rights end right at the point mine begin

It also has a name, the Golden Rule.

That said, we both have a right to go from point a to point b with no fear of getting hurt...fully agreed there.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. Self defense is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Actually not even self defense is

Even that one has a few limits, that said, how is a background check going to limit your ability to get a gun to exercise that right?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

29. Actually it is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. That is why castle doctrine

Should always be checked by a da to make sure it actually applies.

That said, how will a universal background check affect you? Will it stop you from legally acquiring a gun?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

161. Since the right to self-defense is an inherent right, there's no need to be "checked by a da."

It is a natural right, not a right conveyed by the adoption of the Second Amendment nor a right limited by the Second Amendment.

You said, "No right is absolute." My post is in response to that, not to another issue that your raised with respect to background checks at gun shows in certain states which do not currently require such checks. Many posters in other threads interpret the Second Amendment as creating a right and limiting such right to service in a militia. Why doing so, they show that they are unaware of the holding in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) in which the Court held that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[nadinbrzezinski]

169. But they still do and still are sent to a DA

Yiu and I know that, so while in theory Locke agrees with you, in reality there are actual limits.

[loli phabay]

3. says who, i sure as hell dont like the idea that someone else thinks they should tell me my rights

its a shame some people have the right to remain silent but refuse to bless us with them using it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. So you think the first Ammendment is absolute?

And unless you are in the family of people who could NOT pass a background, how would it affect you?

[loli phabay]

17. im not sure if your accusing me and my family of being thieves or not.

no idea why we would steal your background or even if it would be worth it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. The only way a background check

Would prevent you from buying a firearm is if you are in that select group that reasonable people agree should not have access to them. That's the only way a background check would affect you. So unless you would pop, how exactly will a background check prevent you from obtaining a fire arm? This is a reasonable question.

Right now 40% of buyers never go through one, but suggesting this loophole s closed is an attack on responsible gun owners?

[loli phabay]

36. well if the people of my state want that then no problem if not then no background check

its simple.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. So if the Feds close that major loophole

I assume you woud haves problem, even if it woud keep some guns from somebody who is mentally unstable.

No, I am not a flower, I know some folks would commit a federal felony by buying and selling weapons. But it would keep a good number away from them.

Due to intrrstace commerce...supremacy clause should apply.

[loli phabay]

55. problem with the feds doing it is no one would be happy

better to let local municipalities and states do it, as long as they are constitutional.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. As long as the NRA has the power it has

It ain't gonna happen, that's the truth. But this has to be federal. We need to stop this galaxy of regulations...

[loli phabay]

104. why, each state has its own standards on weapons, i would hate to have to go by frinstance NY city

rules.

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. If you had a federal standard that required a background check

Exactky how is that New York City?

[DocMac]

133. Give it up.

You're swimming upstream.

Do you know ChoicePoint or lexisNexis?

[loli phabay]

138. ????????

[DocMac]

144. Please pay attention. I asked a question..

do you have an answer or no? Please address the first question.

[loli phabay]

145. sorry not sure what you were getting at

ive heard of choicepoint and nexislexis.

[DocMac]

146. So, you know what they do? nt

You're thinking background checks, right? LexisNexis bought ChoicePoint, BTW. I know these people.

[loli phabay]

148. you know i wasnt thinking background checks, for some reason i was thinking wall furnishings

no idea why,

[DocMac]

176. Not to worry.

A lot of people don't who they are. But you know now.

Learn about them...they sure know about you.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

189. Yes, the 1st Amendment is absolute for example freedom of speech.

You ARE 100% free at any time to say whatever you want. If you use that freedom to commit crimes you may face consequences of your actions.

One example of an infringement of the 1A is called "prior restraint". This would occur where the government became aware of the impending publication of a document, publication or other work that was deemed problematic and the government issued an injunction to halt publication and maybe seize the material involved. Prior restraint is not accepted in the US and regarded as censorship.

Any firearm regulations involving persons who aren't already prohibited by data registered from an NICS process is analogous to prior restraint and is just as wrong. For the most part NICS filters out those who, by due process, are justly denied the RKBA. Denying, delaying or unduly complicating the exercise of a right is evil. There's no other way to call it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

190. So you would have no issue

If a person who is in the registry got them? We're talking here legally.

And no, freedom of speech has actual limits and it is not absolute.

Sorry if this is hard to accept, but in civilized real world societies that are functional, we have actual limits.

Having universal checks is just common sense, but hey, don't worry, the NRA is so powerful...you will not see any of this until we have a lot more of these incidents...it is the new normal, enjoy.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

191. A person in the registry...

...can't legally get them.

Please explain what limits are on the freedom of speech.

[nadinbrzezinski]

192. Well the best known is I cannot scream fire in a crowded theater

Less known, but well understood are defamation and libel laws.

The first could land you in jail, the other two civil complaints.

So tell me how are these not limits?

Moreover, people buying from private sellers, about 40% of buyers, do not undergo any background check.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

195. The law is, most importantly...

...a criteria to used in court in the judgement of guilt. I'm quite certain people have been charged and found guilty of screaming "fire" in a crowded theater. Therein lies the proof that they (and we) are free to do so. Everyone has freedom and the ability to abuse that freedom. Criminal abuses will usually result in charges, trials and penalties. On the other hand, in the world of prior restraint, such things as injunctions exist. When subject to an injunction or judgement, no trial to determine guilt takes place. Your compliance is mandated. You have no recourse to a trial or the presumption of innocence. Not complying is contempt of court. You are controlled.

A felon buying a gun from a private party behind the Wal-Mart or from Obama himself is illegal. It can (and does) occur because freedom exists.

[nadinbrzezinski]

197. So by that logic, why bother with limits

That make life civilized?

You said there were no limits, there are.

Now, in all seriousness, there are a few places around the world that have no limits...did I mention they're failed states?

I don't think, correct me if I am wrong, that you would prefer rational limits and not to live in a failed state in the name of absolute "freedom." By the way, not even Locke, who came with that concept in the Enlightenment, went that far.

For the record, Thomas Moore did, dystopia comes to mind.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

198. I am not advocating anarchy.

The rule of law is the only option for a civilized society. But the rule of law is not control.

The law helps the just to flourish and helps to punish the evil but does not control either apart from the control inspired within each.

This is the same for laws for both no parking zones and those against murder and everything in between. If laws worked to prevent felons from owning guns, we could prevent people from becoming felons.

[nadinbrzezinski]

199. Confusing reasonable controls

With gun grabbing is a classic of the NRA.

This was a complete hijack of language...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

200. Don't worry.

I won't hold it against you.

The law is not a control in a free society.

[Mopar151]

114. State and federal governments will determine your rights to 1/16"

If you want to, say, haul gasoline for hire. Would it be so horrible to require the same level of qualification to own or control firearms?

[ethereal1]

5. I think this misses the point...

Simply put, if he did not have the guns would he have been deterred or would he have employed those home-made Improvised Explosive Devices instead?

The root cause is what we need to address. What was going on in his mind and how do we determine early enough the problems he was having and intervene?

I don't like it, but humans have killed one another since the beginning of time, including before the advent of firearms.

Why is no one interested in discussing the root cause of these events, instead preferring to trot out that old tried and true "get rid of the 2nd Amendment" mantra?

Ethereal1

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. How is a background check

Getting rid of the second?

[Scootaloo]

13. SLIPPERY SLOPE MAN, SLIPPERY SLOPE!

One day it's a background check, the next day, Cuba's invading the midwest! Just you watch!

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Ah thanks for the perfect example

Of NRA fear campaign.



That is actually one of the talking points.

[Scootaloo]

68. If you could peep into the thoughts of a gun nut...

It'd be a non-stop montage of Red Dawn and Braveheart, cut with scenes of the curb stomp from American History X.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Why I avoid that forum

[Scootaloo]

81. I tried!

Trashed it and everything. But now they're out like roaches on stale cake.

[99Forever]

19. The FACTS of the matter are..

.. that this gunfreak popped his mainspring and used GUNS to commit mass murder, not "home-made Improvised Explosive Devices." He used GUNS to murder innocent people for no apparent reason. not a car. not a knife or any of the other strawman, bs drivel gunnuts want to use to deflect the hardcore reality that mass murderers usually, as in ALMOST ALWAYS use GUNS to commit their crimes. Too fucking many GUNS easily available to FUCKING nutcases IS the problem.

Fuck the NRA.

[Indydem]

92. There are 223 million firearms in America.

4 of them were responsible for this crime.

the other 222,999,996 were not.

The man is the problem, not the tool.

If his apartment detonates, the report is that it could destroy his building and the FIVE around it. If it had detonated in the middle of the night last night, I guarantee the death toll from his shooting spree would look like small potatoes.

If lunatics want to kill people they will find a way. Including, obtaining an illegal, banned, or modified firearm.

[99Forever]

126. Bullshit.

No guns, no mass murder. Simple. Factual. Undeniable. The fact is he used guns, NOT FUCKING bombs, no matter how many times you gun lovers try to run that canard.

[DocMac]

140. His mother was the first line of defense.

We know that failed.

Oh yes, the second line...well maybe people that are less than 30 years of age should show their maturity. Can we measure that?

[mzteris]

187. I'm sorry, what?

Not sure what it is you're trying to say that "his mother was the first line of defense". Would you elaborate, please?

[malaise]

180. How was he going to set up that elaborate booby trap in

a public place?

[99Forever]

9. Our RIGHT TO LIFE...

.. trumps theirs to strap on their deadly toys to make them into manly men.


Fuck the NRA.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. There you are entering into another concept

When my rights infringe on yours...

[JeepJK556]

21. Yes because by banning others from carrying firearms

You are in no way infringing on their right to life. After all no one in the history of the world has ever used a firearm to protect their own life....

[99Forever]

28. Save it for the teabaggers and freepers...

...I ain't buyin' it. Take a self defense course.

[JeepJK556]

57. Yes.

Because an attacker always fights fair and never uses a weapon of any kind.

Yup.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Keep it personal, would you pass a background check?

If you would not, well I get it, but isn't that a felony?

[JeepJK556]

60. huh?

I have passed several background checks since I own a few firearms...

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. Then closing the background check

Would affect you in no way whatsoever, and you woud still be able to enjoy your guns...hence you would not be affected. OTOH it will stop a few people who should not have a gun, well not have it...

No, I am not a flower, I know some people will get them in the underground anyway, but you would still have your rights intact, and if you have a CCW you might, these are rare as can be, even save a life.

If you are particularly in the latter group I urge you to practice at a tactical range every so often.

[AllyCat]

163. And for all of us who do not carry guns...we can't defend ourselves?

We deal every day with people without packing heat. We are much better at defending ourselves without gun violence than we think (and this means you too).

Few (if any) on this forum are talking about banning firearms. We are talking about reasonable safety measures for those who CHOOSE to have them. You still have the right, provided you are not a felon or unstable. A background check at every outlet and some checks on gun sales at shows are REASONABLE and do not infringe on your right to protect yourself if you can't find any other way to do it. I'm guessing, you can find a way that is non-violent.

People with guns in the theater would have done NOTHING except endanger more people. No one could see and there were already too many scared folks running every direction. Some more people would have been killed in attempts to gun down this crazy man.

[madinmaryland]

11. Our rights are only what the USSC says they are.

[Zanzoobar]

15. You are wrong.

And foolish.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Really?

So I could libel you no problem? Do explain how a background check will infringe on your right to obtain, use and enjoy your firearm? If you are in the family of people that pop in a background check, I will get it.

[Zanzoobar]

22. I would rather you explain to me how my right to life is not absolute

[sadbear]

25. If your right to life is absolute, then isn't everyone's?

[Zanzoobar]

31. Yes

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. So I should read that you would not pass a background check?

Otherwise, how are you affected?

[Zanzoobar]

34. I am asking you if my right to life is absolute.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Is my right to life absolute?

I am sure you conclude yours is, but yours might affect mine.

So keep it to the check, otherwise I am concluding you fear a background check because you coud not pass it.

[Zanzoobar]

46. Your position is that no right is absolute

I disagree.

Your right to life is absolute. My right to life is absolute. It cannot be taken away or given away. It is not negotiable.

You need to rethink your OP.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Actually even that is not absolute

Ask prisoners subject to the death penalty, or victims of violent crime.

Though we should aspire to completely protect it, hence having reasonable limits are reasonable...and none is grabbing guns.

[Zanzoobar]

64. They, nonetheless have their right to life.

It is being abridged.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. I guess you have read a tad too much Locke

Yiu still keep avoiding the basic question, and that's ok

For the record, neither the first or second Ammendment are absolute.

[Zanzoobar]

67. I am avoiding nothing.

You supposed that no right is absolute.

Life disagrees.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. And the drum roll continues

12 people lost that fight today, have a good night

[Zanzoobar]

74. When, and if, you ever get around to it

Explain to me how my right to life is not absolute.

[Marr]

102. Doesn't the death penalty prove your right to life is not absolute?

There are a multitude of ways to earn an state execution.

*edit* Upon further reading, I see you're making some kind of fuzzy, metaphysical argument about your right to life. In that case, I would say that anyone advocating for reasonable background checks is defending their own right to life at least as much as you are when you purchase a gun.

[Zanzoobar]

108. No.

An execution is abridgement.

[Marr]

112. An "abridgement" of what?

Your inherent, magical, mystical Right to Live?

What mysterious retribution does the universe visit upon those who abridge your right, if I may ask?

[Zanzoobar]

118. None, as far as I can tell.

[coalition_unwilling]

170. By that logic, death is but an 'abridgement' -n/t

[Zanzoobar]

206. If you employ the strictest definition, that is true. n/t

[JDPriestly]

171. A background check is merely abridgement not infringement of the right. There is nothing in that

Amendment suggesting that it gives any right to people who are not sane and law abiding enough to be members of a militia. Certainly you are not suggesting that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms of a person like the young man who killed so many people this morning to threaten the security of others and even, potentially, of police officers?

The First Amendment states that the right to free speech, etc. may not be abridged. The Second Amendment says that the right shall not be infringed.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=989357


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment

I question whether a person who is mentally ill could be helpful to a well regulated. After all, the militia is described as "necessary to the security of a free state." The right that is protected is the right of the people (note the word suggesting this is a right held as a group) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Of the two amendments, the First Amendment is the more absolute.

a·bridge
   [uh-brij]
verb (used with object), a·bridged, a·bridg·ing.
1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abridge

in·fringe
   [in-frinj] verb, in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringe

Infringe suggests excessive reduction in the right. Abridge suggests that there is to be no reduction of the right.

Exercise of the right of free speech can, except in very rare situations, pose no danger to others or to the security of our country. Exercise of the right to bear arms can pose a danger to others and, at the extreme, to the security of our country. The right to bear arms does not permit private individuals to arm robots or drones with weapons and shoot at their neighbors, for example.

[JDPriestly]

162. If you are a man, you can be called for the draft (which can be recommenced at the will of Congress)

and sent to a post that insures your death. So, no. Your right to life is not absolute. By no means.

[freshwest]

86. Your right to life is not absolute. Kill someone. and defend your life as best you will, but...

The world will not resprct your right to life. Thus, not absolute.

[Zanzoobar]

96. It doesn't matter what the world thinks

The world can only take my life by abridging my right to my life. They can never displace the fact that I have a right to my life.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. Ok this is comical at this point

So does nature abridge your life when well, you stop breathing? We all do, you know.

[Zanzoobar]

100. Comical. Yes.

[freshwest]

142. Sorry, but no way, if you think you can do as you please and never be held to account.

[JDPriestly]

159. Actually, your right to life is not absolute.

If you are convicted of certain crimes, a government may sentence you to death.

[2ndAmForComputers]

70. Try to point a gun at a police officer.

See how absolute your right to life is.

[Zanzoobar]

78. That would be considered abridgement.

I would still retain my right to life.

[white_wolf]

20. Rights are a creation of society...

and as such they are not absolute.

[Zanzoobar]

24. Another fig leaf of tyranny

[white_wolf]

33. Tell me, where do rights come from?

Did they simply spring into existence at the dawn of time? Are they granted by some deity? Has every human civilization recognized rights? No. They are social constructs, they are important and good constructs and I think in many ways they should be expanded, but they are social creations, if you think otherwise please tell me where they come from.

[Zanzoobar]

38. Yes. The dawn of time.

A squirrel has the right to turn on a coyote and try to shred it, does it not?

That right is not granted by society, it is granted by life.

A man has the same right, and that right is absolute without regard to society.

[white_wolf]

44. Rights are granted by life.

That's a strange concept, but tell me which rights are granted by life? The right to free speech? Animals don't have that right, animals don't have any of the modern rights we ascribe to humans. Human beings throughout most of history haven't had the rights we ascribe to them. If rights are granted by life then how come so few societies have acknowledged their existence?

[Zanzoobar]

58. Everything that is alive has an inherent right to life

To answer your last question, probably because most societies are failures.

It's only a strange concept to those who have no conception of what a right is. It is only a strange concept to those who don't know what "unalienable" means.

I can never destroy your right to life and liberty. I can only abridge them. The rights exist before man. They are unalienable to every living creature.

[white_wolf]

62. Now we are talking semantics.

You can say it is abridging, I can say taken away. The end result is the same.

[Zanzoobar]

65. Nonetheless, I have the right.

This is what you do not accept. My right exists regardless of society.

[white_wolf]

72. What makes you think that?

That is what I don't understand. Where does your right to life come from? Not from nature, as any wild predator could kill you if it was hungry. Nature doesn't respect rights. If it comes from a deity, which one?

[Zanzoobar]

76. A very good example.

If I were to turn on the predator and over power it I would be well within my right to kill it.

My right to life exists before the whole universe.

[white_wolf]

79. Where do rights come from?

Answer me that. You can't just say the are granted at life, there is no evidence for that. You might as well say God grants them, it is about the same argument. They must come from somewhere.

[Zanzoobar]

80. I can, without question, say they are granted by life.

You do not understand what a right is, or you are being willfully obtuse.

[white_wolf]

83. No, I simply do not accept your views on rights.

That is far different from not understanding what a right is.

[Zanzoobar]

84. OK. I'll make it easy for you.

If a person tries to smash your skull with a blunt object tonight, are you going to worry whether or not society grants you the power to defend yourself?

[JDPriestly]

174. Society gives you the right to self-defense provided that your belief that you need to use

self-defense is considered by society to be reasonable. The word reasonable is defined as objectively reasonable, what a reasonable person would believe or think under the circumstances. Traditionally, the right to self-defense is not a subjective right. You cannot simply say, well I was afraid for my life so I attacked this person. A jury or perhaps under some circumstances a judge can, after the fact, determine that your belief that you were in danger of losing your life, while subjectively reasonable because you actually believed it at the time, was not objectively reasonable and that, therefore, what you believed was a necessary act of self-defense was murder. That happens.

A person who is confused about the limitations on the "right" to "defend" against others, a person who has an exaggerated idea about his right to use weapons should stay away from weapons.

I knew a guy who refused to put down a gun after police officers told him to put it down. Trust me. That guy learned that he did not have an unlimited right to bear his arm. The right to bear arms is limited. It most definitely ends when a police officer tells you to put your gun down. No matter where. No matter when, you put that gun down. The police represent the interests of society when it comes to limiting the right to bear arms. Most of them try to do it in a reasonable, fair manner. But society entrusts police officers with that right.

So our right to life and certainly our right to bear arms is entrusted in our police officers and in our legal system. The idea of an absolute right to bear arms would not and could not work in a functioning society. It is a limited right. It certainly exists, but is not an absolute right.

[JDPriestly]

173. You can kill flies with your bare hands, but anything larger and wilder than a house cat might be a

match and your winning would not be guaranteed. If you decide to fight other humans, you will find that other humans are part of the social family around them and that they will work together against you to defend themselves. If you want the right to the protection of society, then you have to play by the rules of society. That means you protect and respect the rights of others. We humans have no right to hurt other humans. We also don't have the right to harm the property or animals of other humans.

[JDPriestly]

172. A human is a social animal. We cannot survive to our third year of life without

a social support system. And at the age of three, a child probably would not survive a squirrel attack, much less a coyote bite. Humans need society, and for humans to live in society, they must agree to rules and limitations on their behavior. Human life does not grant you the right to kill other human beings. Human life does not grant you the right to carry any weapon or to threaten the security of others in your society.

People who live by the rules that apply to animals and things -- people who reject the rules of human society -- are severely punished by society. That is the rule of human life.

[Odin2005]

89. "Inheirent Rights" are nonsense on stilts.

To quote Jeremy Bentham.

Your post is an Argument by Consequences fallacy.

[Zanzoobar]

91. I have no clue who Jeremy is

And, you're wrong.

[Odin2005]

99. Bentham was a great English progressive philosopher from the late 1700s.

The father of Utilitarianism. He was one of the masterminds of the penal reform movement for more humane treatment of prison inmates, among other things.

[Zanzoobar]

101. So, was your remark another fallacy?

Maybe an appeal to authority?

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. Even more funny since you are all but directly

Quoting from John Locke...

Personally I prefer Sartre and Foucault.

[white_wolf]

109. I've recently started reading John Rawls. He is interesting.

Hard to get through, but interesting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Been going over Derrida

In spanish, which is closer to French.

[Odin2005]

123. Isn't Derrida's work just word salad trying to sound profound?

[nadinbrzezinski]

129. Nope, deconstruction has it's place

Especially in historic research.

[white_wolf]

106. No it wasn't.

He merely quoted Bentham to illustrate a point. However, the argument that your view on rights is a fallacy stands on it's own merits. You view it as a good thing that rights are absolute, therefore they are. However, you offer no evidence to support your view. It is circular reasoning.

[Zanzoobar]

110. I don't have to offer evidence

The world offers it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. Even Locke did not get that sloppy

Read On Government.

[Zanzoobar]

115. I have never read Locke.

I am wait for you to explain something you don't wish to explain.

[nadinbrzezinski]

132. That explains it

You're sounding like John Locke, but have never read it. Where do you think that you are spouting started?

I guess I shoud thank the lords you are not sounding like Thomas Moore.

[Zanzoobar]

136. Again, no clue.

You are awfully well read. One would think you'd have absorbed some of it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

137. What can I say?

Goodbye

[white_wolf]

119. Hmm, that sounds very similar to the what Christians say when you ask for evidence about their god.

They often says stuff like "nature points to a creator" (ignoring the fact that, that is at best an argument for Deism and not Christianity) Still, though how is your argument any different then the Christian one?

[Zanzoobar]

130. You are reaching.

Very far. Very wide.

If you would simply answer the question I posed, it will be understood.

[white_wolf]

135. How am I reaching?

You are using the exact same argument Christians use when they are pressed for evidence. Where is your evidence? You are making an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on you. So, offer your evidence. As to your question, of course I would defend myself or flee, but that isn't because I have an inherent right to live. It is simply a matter of self-preservation, it's evolutionary to try and preserve your life, but I don't think I have some inherent right to life. I,do, however have a socially granted right to life and if you take my life society will punish you.

[Zanzoobar]

141. I am not sure how we've strayed.

In our conversation, we were discussing the origin of rights.

I posed a question:

"If a person tries to smash your skull with a blunt object tonight, are you going to worry whether or not society grants you the power to defend yourself? "

[Odin2005]

120. EPIC LOGIC FAIL!

[white_wolf]

127. I don't think that is even good enough to be a fallacy.

It's just epic fail.

[Zanzoobar]

131. Then answer the question.

[Odin2005]

143. What question?

You used a fallacious argument, I debunked it.

[Zanzoobar]

147. You came in kinda late

and might be somewhat confused as to the direction of the conversation. I understand. It was related to the OP, and the question was to whitewolf somewhere above.

"If a person tries to smash your skull with a blunt object tonight, are you going to worry whether or not society grants you the power to defend yourself?:"

[white_wolf]

150. I answered your question, but...

its a pointless question. The fact that I might defend myself doesn't mean I have a right do so. People engage in plenty of actions they don't have a right to engage in. The mere fact that I can do something doesn't give me the right to do it.

[Zanzoobar]

152. You don't have a right to defenfd your life?

You are being willfully obtuse and argumentative. Disingenuous, even. I'm sorry I wasted my time. I stayed up past my bedtime for your response. Awful.

[white_wolf]

156. Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

You've never offed a shred of evidence to support your view. Show me some, otherwise you are no better than the Christians claiming that Jesus will come back. You made the claim, it is up to you to support it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

160. I could

But I bothered reading where this comes from,

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of property...



These are innalienable rights deriving from the creator that cannot be infringed upon by the state...

I'll stop now...

[Odin2005]

153. Of course not.

But just because somebody claims a right to self defense does not mean you actually do. Slave owners believed they had a right to treat slaves as private property and so could assault them as much as they wanted.

[Odin2005]

116. No, I was just sourcing the quote.

[Zanzoobar]

124. The quote is amorphous.

[bhikkhu]

40. "Unalienable rights" are a special case, not a creation of society

http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm - without which tyranny could become a real problem.

But the right to bear arms isn't in anyone's list of unalienable rights; rather, it is as you say a creation of society. To remove it you would have to change the law of the land, and amend the constitution.

[white_wolf]

50. We are essentially getting to a metaphysical debate at this point.

If these rights are unalienable and have always existed, then why have so few societies recognized them? The very idea of unalienable rights is pretty much an Enlightenment idea. I do believe in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (though I may the last one differently then some) I still they are just creations of society.

[JDPriestly]

175. A human baby cannot sur

So the idea that we have unalienable rights is defined by certain natural limitations that we have as humans.

We are not lone wolves. Human beings who seek to live alone by themselves have to find a spiritual path or go crazy. Most people cannot do that. And even human beings who try to live by themselves have needs that cannot be satisfied without other people. I lived for a year in a tiny town in a country in which I could only speak a few words of the language. There was one other person there who spoke English. I assure you, I still found ways to communicate with people around me -- to buy eggs and milk, for example. In a situation like that, our social needs compel us to learn the foreign language. We cannot survive without at least sign language or some way to deal with others.

It is possible to live a solitary life for a limited period, but a person becomes very strange if they are alone too much. People on death row go through that torment. We are very social beings. It is in our nature. We develop a lot of social needs in our infancy. A baby cries for its mother's milk. That is the law of nature -- that a human baby cannot, cannot ever survive without nurture.

That is the true "natural law": human beings must live in a social context -- in infancy for basic survival. And as adult humans, we need to live in a society for the survival of our sanity and also to meet our physical needs.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

154. Rights...

...are attributes of being human. They may be respected by others but no one "grants" your rights.

[bhikkhu]

27. A background check is certainly reasonable

...as the right to bear arms should apply only to those competent to bear arms. I don't imagine that the founders believed that it was in their best interests for violent criminals, the mentally unstable, children, etc, to be freely armed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Bingo. And I gave the example of the Whiskey Rebellion

Where a militia was out down by the army.

[Lizzie Poppet]

56. And we already have them, nationwide.

The system's been in place for years and years, and the large majority of gun owners support it (as does most everyone else). the glaring loophole is that it doesn't apply to private transactions between individuals. it would be nice if those could be included...but enforcement would be a titanic obstacle.

[Loudly]

32. The 2A is a creature of SCOTUS.

So re-elect the President and help him reshape the Court into something sensible.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. It's a creature of 150 years.

Not a one POTUS can solve it. But in this case politicians need to lose their fear of the modern-day NRA which is no longer a responsible organization.

[young_at_heart]

49. Right on the money!!

The NRA has blood on their hands! We keep asking, "How many have to die before the politicians do something?". We've heard this for years, and as more Republicans gain power, the less 'something' is done. It's truly sickening!!!!

[Loudly]

51. If you mean the Senate has advise and consent on appointments

then certainly I can't disagree with you.

But how long did it take from the founding to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka?

About 170 years, give or take.

So be patient and push, push, push.

[Kalidurga]

41. I am really starting to not like the 2nd amendment "protectors".

I can't distinguish their arguments from a rabid RWer. That alone should give them pause. But, it seems they rush in to defend something no one is even threatening. Something about that doesn't look right to me. I don't even see anywhere in the 2nd amendment where it states an individual has a right to bear arms. It says the state has the right to regulate arms and maintain a militia. So, to that end I would say that the state should step in and make sure every gun owner is in a state militia. That would be a state militia and not just some group in a state that says that they are a militia.

[gejohnston]

139. And the 2A "enemies"

sound more like fundies. Actually there is a movement, impotent as it is, that tries to threaten it. Legal scholars disagree with you. The BoR are a set of negative rights, it puts limits on the government not what people are allowed to do.

[Tumbulu]

42. One should be required to have liability insurance and pass a test

as drivers must do and people who fly planes. It is a serious thing to own and use a firearm and it should be treated seriously. Tests, insurance, etc. The prople that I know who are into hunting take it very seriously and are most careful and really do not like the yahoos that go around acting like idiots with guns.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. While I agree

We have an issue closing the gun show loop.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

43. You're being far too kind to them...

I'd make them go through extensive mental health examinations once a year to maintain the privilege of gun ownership.

I'd make it a felony for anyone to use a gun not registered in their name.

I'd tax ammo and use the gun owner license fees to create a health care fund for those injured or killed with firearms.

[Tumbulu]

48. Excellent ideas!

plus liability insurance, and a driver's type test on safe handling of firearms.

[gejohnston]

178. why create a new tax

when you can redirect the funds from the handgun sales tax that has been around since 1919?

[cherokeeprogressive]

45. Is there an absolute right to healthcare?

[aikoaiko]

53. Who tells you the 2nd is absolute?

I've never seen that posted here or elsewhere.

And there are certainly a lot of laws restricting gun possession already.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Read the posts

When folks go into a conniption over background checks...some folks do believe they are absolute.

We're talking perception, but tell me, you have a problem wth closing the gun show loophole?

Let's start with something reasonable people agree.

[aikoaiko]

186. States are already permitted to require background checks on private sales at gun shows.

Some do. Some require background checks on private sales are gunshows, and some require background checks for all private sales.

I've been to a lot pf gun shows and the vast majority of guns are new gun sales that require Federal Firearm Licensees conducting NICS background checks.

Its not clear that Federal Law can constitutionally require

I reject the concept of "gun show loophole" because Federal law specifically allows for private sales anywhere. If you have state law that requires back ground checks at gun shows would you still allow non-gun show private sales?

I find it odd that this issue would come up now when it didn't have anything to do with the movie massacre.

[nadinbrzezinski]

188. But not all

Why this needs to be federal.

And I am just going over something most reasonable people agree...well, most reasonable people agree.

[aikoaiko]

193. Like I said, it is not so clear that Federal law can address this constitutionally.

It would have to depend on the commerce clause which may not apply because private sales must be contained within a state. Private sales between states already require an FFL and background check to occur.

[nadinbrzezinski]

194. Yup, and given that Smith and Wesson does

Not have a factory in every state, commerce clause does apply.

[krispos42]

61. *snort* Have you read DU in the past 24 hours?

Pretty much everybody here would agree this instant to outlaw all civilian gun ownership. Because, apparently, only the corporate-defending police and the military-industrial-congressional complex should have guns.

We have background checks for gun dealers. If you want to expand that, you can, but it has to be done on a state level, as this is not a federal issue. And stop calling it a gun-show loophole; it's not.

Part of the problem is that some states are far behind in their reporting of mental and criminal records to the background check system. If the information isn't accurate and timely, this reduces the ability of the background checks to help.

The killing we continue regardless, I fear. Our non-gun homicide rate is as high or higher as the total homicide rate in many western European countries, so it's pretty clear that the core problem of our higher homicide rate (which dropped in half from 1991 to 2004) is our society... economy, education, drug war, prison system, etc.


And there are plenty of gun laws already on the books on a federal and state level.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Sadly I agree with you

The killing will continue, and I will never see reasonable laws, because the NRA has too much power...but I agree with you...more senseless tragedies in our future...just hope not to be in the middle of it.

Oh and one last thing, as a gun owner it be silly for me to advocate confiscation...

But how will a weapons background check affect you?

[krispos42]

82. Even if the Brady campaign got everything they wanted, the killings would continue

Like I said, our non-gun homicide rate is equal to or greater than most of the countries in Western Europe. Since many of the murders that would be committed with a gun would still be committed anyway, our non-gun homicide rate would skyrocket.


It's possible that the total rate would go down, but that would still leave us at several times the European rate which apparently is our target.

It's also possible it will be unchanged, or even creep up as small-time thieves grow emboldened to break into houses instead of cars, thus increasing the contact between criminal and victim.

Nadin, given the choice between tightening gun laws and loosening drug laws, I'd take the latter. Not only would it make us freer, but it would save far more lives, save far more money, generate far more revenue, and take effect much sooner than any gun law would.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Ending the war on drugs is a reasonable goal

But when you have an average of 20 mass shootings a year, and incredibly more of these high intensity events happening more often, it will take more shootings. Sadly.

But again, unless you are in the select group that could not pass a background, how will a universal background affect you? That is a reasonable question.

We own guns too, and quite frankly we scratch our heads about that one. Reasonable people agree that felons and psychologically unstable people shoud not have access to guns. That is not unreasonable, or s it?

[krispos42]

181. Background checks for all?

Well, aside from the inconvenience of having to myself and my customer/vendor to an FLL and pay a fee to the person doing the background check, not much.

Of course, there's also the minor discomforting fact that now there's de facto gun registration in the country, which I find unpleasant and worrisome. But that can be worked around, I suppose, in a legislative fashion by not having a guns make, model, or serial number on the transfer form.


However, this idea that you are proposing in the wake of the Colorado shooting is one that would not, at all, have affected the outcome a single iota because he did not buy his guns privately. I just want you to be aware of this.




I take the Brady Campaign numbers with a grain of salt about mass shootings; they attempted to draw a correlation between concealed pistol permittees with mass shootings, only to find out upon examination of their supporting document that more than half of the cases cited were done in the permittee's house. Obviously, one's ability to legally and routinely carrying a concealed pistol in public has zilch to do with a person deciding to gun down his family and then blow his brains out.

I believe they also extend the definition of "children" up to age 19, which is of course very misleading.

[nadinbrzezinski]

184. Well I guess you will also take the College of Trauma

numbers with a grain of Salt and the FBI.

But if we cannot agree that people who are mentally unstable, ex felons, people who have been convicted of domestic abuse, should not have guns... the people who will come up in a background check, that is a problem. Are you seriously that afraid of the government? I mean given the last two revolt against the government by militias failed, (Whiskey Rebellion, Civil War, how long do you think one today would last?) I give it hours.

This is not 1776 after all, and funny thing, the people who were told had to own guns back then were members of a militia, something about Springfield Arms not being around yet., and actually getting the second part of the 2nd....

But seriously, you would have an issue with actually NOT being able to sell guns to people who would pop in a background check. Now that is what I call, radical.

Oh and no, this is not in response to Colorado, I have been a fan of closing that loophole for a few years, more than since Virginia Tech for example... but don't worry, the NRA will never, ever let that happen... and so far, they have both state and federal legislatures in their back pockets. So don't worry.

As I said, will take a LOT MORE BLOODSHED for the political class to finally grow a spine and tell the NRA where to stuff it. It will not happen in my life time. What will happen in my life time are more unnecessary killings and we will continue to have deaths at 20 times the rate of any other advanced democracy. But you are right, them trauma docs also make shit up.

[2ndAmForComputers]

75. "Pretty much everybody here would agree this instant to outlaw all civilian gun ownership" - No.

Not me, at least. The problem isn't the laws, it's the fucked-up macho compensating-for-something culture.

That won't be fixed by laws, only by education.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

90. I wouldn't support that either, mostly because it's not feasible.

I'd be happy with laws that restrict the kind of people that can carry guns.

[krispos42]

182. I've been reading the threads

An awful lot of people have come to the conclusion that we simply shouldn't have privately held guns.

[nadinbrzezinski]

185. But not all

Let's assume for a sec the government went there. How exactly could the government go about confiscating 300 Million guns?

It's like people who advocate for mass expulsion of aliens...it ain't gonna happen, if nothing else due to logistical issues.

[2ndAmForComputers]

201. "An awful lot of people" != "Pretty much everybody"

[DonCoquixote]

87. I salute you

Tonight brings out two types: the beasts locked in the gungeon, and those who think we can be like England where even the cops eschew guns. Common sense is not common tonight.

[Odin2005]

94. Rights are the creation of society.

As an Atheist that is the only logical answer, to believe otherwise would require one to believe in a god who created such rights, something I dismiss as mythological thinking, turning an aspect of Human social reality into a law of nature..

Rights are something created by people and then enforced by the barrel of a gun through revolution and/or the coercive power of the state

[Tejas]

95. "We average 20 mass shootings a year"

Brady, no shit, you fucking cited Brady!

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. I could cite FBI

But that be comical to gun bunnies.

So riddle me this one batman, how exactly would an universal background check affect your ability to obtain a fire arm? If it actually does, then I get it.

[Tejas]

121. Much better than citing Repubs sucking on the Joyce Foundation teat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. In other words

I will have to assume that you would not be able to pass a background check.

[Tejas]

149. In other words, citing the FBI would be an excellent choice.

[nadinbrzezinski]

151. Yup, you will not answer the question

Bye

[Tejas]

157. You asked about citing the FBI, I say great idea, what the hell is wrong with you?

Citing Brady has long been established as one of the dumbest things you can do, no sensible anti will even consider doing it. If you want to drown in the Bradyade, go ahead, you won't be the first.

[obliviously]

204. They already have a federal backgroung check.

Do facts not apply to this crap you post?

[nadinbrzezinski]

205. Do 40% of all gun sales are not background checked

Enter into the facts or did Harvard made that up to irritate you?

[obliviously]

207. Where is your proof?

[nadinbrzezinski]

208. Harvard

But I guess they pulled that our of their ass too.

[zappaman]

103. "We average 20 mass shootings a year"

No we don't.

[gejohnston]

128. so absolute, NFA is being struck down as we speak?

And as far as the second Ammendment early in our history we had a rebellion put down by the Army, under the direct command of the CiC. I think one George Washington had a clue about that, maybe as a founder, he still needed the NRA and Scalia to tell him what he meant.

Actually, the overwhelming scholarship agrees with Scalia. The "collectivist" theory did not exist until the mid 20th century. Oh yeah, it was SAF, the NRA did nothing.

We already have limits on speech, famously not being able to scream fire in a crowded theater. There are others, such as libel and defamation, but suggest reasonable laws, such as closing the gun show loop sends fans of the second into fits.

gun show loophole is a misnomer. How would you regulate intra state private sales without violating the commerce clause?

Part of the reason is that things reasonable people agree upon, such as background checks, are transformed into fear campaigns of they will take my guns. These are fear campaigns, period.

Background checks are federal law, but in the past Brady et al have admitted to an incremental approach, and they never opposed a ban. I'm skeptical.

We average 20 mass shootings a year, per the Brady campaign, and major incidents are happening more and more often.

and you take propaganda from an advocacy group at face value?

I will repeat this, no right is absolute, yet none is comming to grab your guns. The NRA is no longer rational, and we need some rational limits...as in background checks that will keep guns from mentally insane, and people who served time in prison.

We do. BTW, Canada allows most felons to legally own guns once they served their time.

We also need access to mental health care... And we will need to sooner or later reconsider this policy

that we agree 100 percent

But we have 34 people murdered a day, and 40% of all sales are not screened in a background check

. Most of them are criminals killing other criminals

But hey...

Oh and we own guns... But I am in favor of background checks for all who buy a fire arm.

I expect this to go nowhere, so let the killing continue, since the 2nd Ammendment, I am told, is absolute.

Shill studies on both sides show gun laws affect crime rates. Studies done by criminologists who belong to neither camp and are not funded by either show that there is no evidence that gun laws affect violent crime either way. If the 2A were as absolute as you claim, does that mean NFA-34 and the other four federal gun laws we have now are being struck down? No? So, I guess it isn't so absolute is it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

134. Well, will ask you

Too

How will a background check affect you? And the Brady campaign numbers come from the FBI.

But you knew that...is FBI a shill too?

[jleavesl]

164. Whenever I buy a gun from a dealer, I go through a background check.

So it won't...

[nadinbrzezinski]

166. Good, but there is a loophole

We both know it, and closing it seems to be not doable. Mind you, for political reasons.

[gejohnston]

165. Just because Brady claims the FBI said it, does not mean the FBI said it.

I would have to see the actual numbers from the FBI. Brady and MAIG claim most of New York's crime guns come from Virginia, but the ATF says they come from New York by a margin of 4-1. According to the ATF, the plurality of DC's crime guns are from Maryland with Virginia a close second.
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/
I don't oppose background checks for private sales, so the question is moot. Not at all, since I don't like to buy or sell to private sellers I don't know. My question is how are you going to enforce and who is going to do the checks, if an FFL, what administrative or amendments to the GCA needs to take place to make it easy for an FFL to do without having to enter the gun as part of his or her inventory.

[nadinbrzezinski]

167. So why are we arguing?

Good to see you support a REASONABLE regulation...which closing the loophole is. It ain't gonna happen for political reasons.

[gejohnston]

179. I didn't know we were

but it is not really a loophole since congress knew what they were doing when the passed the law as it is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

183. It is called one, is it not?

And it should be closed.

[mzteris]

155. My high school social studuies teacher

Had a saying . . . "one person's rights END where another person's begins."

[nadinbrzezinski]

158. My civics teacher said that often

But in Spanish.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

168. I think I'll start a campaign....

....telling people that "the government" is out to take away their refrigerators. I'll send out emails, create websites, and send out big colorful mailings admonishing people to send me money so I can protect them and their refrigerators from the big, bad, overreaching government! Americans have a right to have a refrigerator! Don't let big government take away your refrigerator!!

Could start lobbying firms, special interest groups, superPACS to protect American refrigerators. Set up an office in DC. And control the government. They'd better not DARE try to pass any legislation controlling refrigerators or my right to have any damn refrigerator I want. Even if it explodes. Or is a fire hazard. Or if little children or animals might accidentally get caught inside the freezer. THEY BETTER NOT EVEN TRY to regulate my damn refrigerator! Or yours! Better contribute now! Our American freedom depends on it!



Seriously though. What a racket.

[Scuba]

177. Great post, K&R

[Liberal Gramma]

196. I think background checks aren't effective because

the craziness usually doesn't show up until the nutjob gun-buyer shoots a random bunch of people. How many people do you know that you suspect are mentally ill, but are not on medication, not hospitalized, not under a doctor's care? Background checks only stop certified loonies and people with criminal records, and even they can buy whatever they want at gun shows or over the net. I have no idea what would work but I suspect anything broad enough to stop sales to those we suspect might be crazy would also limit the freedom of the rest of us. A ban on assault weapons wouldn't stop random acts of violence, but it would certainly reduce the number of victims of any incident.