Iowa FTW

[RageBeoulve]

You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.

I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.

By your logic we should have more killings than you, then.

OBJECTION: misleading!

We were always more violent, even with you had guns. Don't even try that shit, man. Also, after guns were banned over there, violent crime skyrocketed.

Both the UK and Australia instituted strict gun control legislation which basically eliminated private gun ownership in 1997. However, neither countries' legislation had an impact on lowering violent crime, and in both cases violent crime actually went up in the years following the enactment of the gun legislation.

Some gun control advocates, like Piers Morgan, would point towards the lower homicide rate of each country, but the fact of that matter is that both countries enjoyed the same lower homicide rates than the United States even before enacting their gun legislation, making those claims disingenuous.

Moreover, despite the UK having its gun ban, the violent crime rate is still far above that of the United States, and the country has also earned the title of violent crime capital of Europe.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24124/7-gun-control-facts-that-are-actually-myths

Also, how many of those dead people in the statistics are career criminals, rapists, thieves, etc?

[TheoK]

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a right, and all rights must be granted to all citizens. All people are created equal.

This is where we disagree. I don't see owning a firearm as a right any more than I see owning a nuke as a right.

To me, saying that a blind person can't own a gun is like having a citizen pass a test before being allowed to vote. Would letting people with who fail vote lead to a decrease in the quality of elections? Even if so, it wouldn't be sufficient reason to deny them their rights. If there are preconditions on who can exercise universal rights, then they aren't universal rights anymore.

Considering the quality of the voting population, I think you are on to something here.

But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.

The way I see it, you also have the right to own a gun. Your system just doesn't acknowledge it. I don't regard it as right granted to me by the Constitution; as I've mentioned, I have the right regardless of what the Constitution says.

Exactly. And as I said: if he doesn't believe in universal rights, he can't believe in rights at all. If there exists anything like rights, they have nothing to do with legislation.

[RageBeoulve]

Yeah. No gubmint ofishul tells you what your rights are. At times I am just mystified by how these progressives think, dude. Its like they actually strive to be enslaved and hate themselves along with every single part of the human condition. I know that's not true, but its the only thing that seems to give even the faintest logical pattern to their behavior.


(If you want to get snide folks, you picked the wrong fucking subject. I'll give right back.)

[Adam]

Adam isn't a philosopher 

Neither are you.

I am, at least to the degree that I know what I am talking about here. I have studied philosophy at the university.

 

That doesn't make you a "philosopher" any more than I am an historian.

[Adam]

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a right, and all rights must be granted to all citizens. All people are created equal.

This is where we disagree. I don't see owning a firearm as a right any more than I see owning a nuke as a right.

To me, saying that a blind person can't own a gun is like having a citizen pass a test before being allowed to vote. Would letting people with who fail vote lead to a decrease in the quality of elections? Even if so, it wouldn't be sufficient reason to deny them their rights. If there are preconditions on who can exercise universal rights, then they aren't universal rights anymore.

Considering the quality of the voting population, I think you are on to something here.

But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.

The way I see it, you also have the right to own a gun. Your system just doesn't acknowledge it. I don't regard it as right granted to me by the Constitution; as I've mentioned, I have the right regardless of what the Constitution says.

Again, that's where we disagree.

I don't see how anything to do with guns is a natural right

Universal rights are things like freedom of belief, pursuit of happiness etc.

Your constitution might recognise the right to bare arms, but it's not a universal right.

[Adam]

But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.

There either are universal rights or there are not. If there are no universal rights, you have no rights. No rights. In that case you must accept that the stronger is the one that is right.

Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Here you also see how absurd legislation is. You are for controlling things with laws, but if you at the same time are saying that there are no universal rights you at the same time must admit that all laws are just made up and have no moral justification.

Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

[RageBeoulve]

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a right, and all rights must be granted to all citizens. All people are created equal.

This is where we disagree. I don't see owning a firearm as a right any more than I see owning a nuke as a right.

To me, saying that a blind person can't own a gun is like having a citizen pass a test before being allowed to vote. Would letting people with who fail vote lead to a decrease in the quality of elections? Even if so, it wouldn't be sufficient reason to deny them their rights. If there are preconditions on who can exercise universal rights, then they aren't universal rights anymore.

Considering the quality of the voting population, I think you are on to something here.

But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.

The way I see it, you also have the right to own a gun. Your system just doesn't acknowledge it. I don't regard it as right granted to me by the Constitution; as I've mentioned, I have the right regardless of what the Constitution says.

Again, that's where we disagree.

I don't see how anything to do with guns is a natural right

Universal rights are things like freedom of belief, pursuit of happiness etc.

Your constitution might recognise the right to bare arms, but it's not a universal right.

You need a natural right that protects all the other ones. You cannot just have faith that living in service to a person or organization is in your best interests. Giving "leaders" a monopoly on violence is just like sucking on the barrel of one of the guns you are so afraid of. Seriously. Sooner or later you WILL be looking down the barrel of a gun if you follow this path, and since the citizens don't have any guns, you know who'd going to be pointing it at you right? Think about it.

[TheoK]

Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.

Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

[RageBeoulve]

Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.

Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.

[odeon]

Adam isn't a philosopher 

Neither are you.

I am, at least to the degree that I know what I am talking about here. I have studied philosophy at the university.

Did you complete a degree in it (serious question)? I have a friend who did.

[odeon]

But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.

There either are universal rights or there are not. If there are no universal rights, you have no rights. No rights. In that case you must accept that the stronger is the one that is right.

Or we can postulate universal rights and don't back off on them a millimeter, like in Spooner's system. That is consistent and will guarantee you that no one infringess on your rights.

Here you also see how absurd legislation is. You are for controlling things with laws, but if you at the same time are saying that there are no universal rights you at the same time must admit that all laws are just made up and have no moral justification.

Logic fail. "No universal laws" does not equal "all laws are made up and have no moral justification".

You should know this, considering your university background, regardless of what your opinions re universal laws are.

[odeon]

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a right, and all rights must be granted to all citizens. All people are created equal.

This is where we disagree. I don't see owning a firearm as a right any more than I see owning a nuke as a right.

To me, saying that a blind person can't own a gun is like having a citizen pass a test before being allowed to vote. Would letting people with who fail vote lead to a decrease in the quality of elections? Even if so, it wouldn't be sufficient reason to deny them their rights. If there are preconditions on who can exercise universal rights, then they aren't universal rights anymore.

Considering the quality of the voting population, I think you are on to something here.

But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.

The way I see it, you also have the right to own a gun. Your system just doesn't acknowledge it. I don't regard it as right granted to me by the Constitution; as I've mentioned, I have the right regardless of what the Constitution says.

Then we'll have to disagree. I didn't mention our system in this context, though.

[odeon]

I can almost smell your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.

Well, you should have your nose checked, then. This is not true. I disagree with you re guns, and disagree strongly, but that's it, in this case.

See, I am perfectly capable of disagreeing with someone without even disliking the person behind the opinion.

I have posted my opinions about your country and its people in this thread and elsewhere, several times. If you think I'm lying you'd better back it up or admit that you were, um, talking out of your nose.

[odeon]

Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.

Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.

Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.

[odeon]

Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.

Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.

I wish you'd understand this.