39 replies to this topic

[RECarry]

^{In the northern suburbs, it was eye-opening to see how many campaign mailers the IL Dem Party funded with the message "woman's right to choose". We know what that's about.  But the left refuses to acknowledge a woman's right to choose a mode of self defense that allows her equal protection against a more powerful attacker.  The left does not believe in absolute rights - unless it relates to one of their agendas then there is no room for discussion.}

Edited by RECarry, Today, 07:50 AM.

[BobPistol]

RECarry, on 25 May 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

^{In the northern suburbs, it was eye-opening to see how many campaign mailers the IL Dem Party funded with the message "woman's right to choose". We know what that's about.  But the left refuses to acknowledge a woman's right to choose a mode of self defense that allows her equal protection against a more powerful attacker.  The left does not believe in absolute rights - unless it relates to one of their agendas then there is no room for discussion.}

Their "right to choose" for women means "no human rights for anyone unless you get permission from one person - your mother"   or "human rights are only for the chosen, and not for everyone"

That is the message loud and clear.

That's why they were pushing for "may issue" - again, another human right only for the chosen.

Edited by BobPistol, Today, 07:58 AM.

[w00dc4ip]

BobPistol, on 25 May 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

Federal Farmer, on 24 May 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

If we two are locked in a room with no food and are starving to death does your right to life empower you to take mine?  I know your answer, which is correct.  No.  So your right to life doesn't overrule my right to life and vice versa.

By saying that neither of us have the right to kill each other that shows that the right to life is absolute.   That's my point.

The fact that both of us are alive in the first place and that nobody has infringed on both of our right to life, allows us to discuss what OTHER human rights we have.   Without the right to life, no other human rights exist.

That's why the 2A is so important.  It is tied in to the right to life.   Self-defense.   The right to defend those I love.  The right to defend other's lives.

Bob,
There are seemingly two arguments going on here.  Yes, you have a right to life so long as you make choices that keep you alive.  However, if someone breaks into your house to rob you, so that they can obtain food for themself and their family, but then you shoot and kill them when a confrontation erupts...
1. The thief has infringed on your property rights (an extension of your right to life, the ability to trade your labor - your life's time and effort - for money or goods) to support his right to life.
2. You have infringed on the thief's right to life to defend your property rights.
Yes, there are other "choices" people can make in finding better ways to feed themselves, just as you can make better choices in where to live and how to lock your doors to reduce the chances you never have to shoot an intruder.  "Rights" are a made up concept, at a universal, planetary, or natural level they do not exist.  The insect's right to life ends in the fish's stomach, which ends in the seal's stomach, which in turn ends in the whale's stomach.  "Your property" is only yours because you claim it to be so, and you defend it as such.  Perhaps society would side with you in the argument should it arise.  However, rights only exist in our ability, as individuals and as a society, to define and defend them.  All of your rights cease to exist immediately should China nuke your hometown.

Edited by w00dc4ip, Today, 12:33 PM.

[Trevis]

w00dc4ip, on 25 May 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

Bob,
There are seemingly two arguments going on here.  Yes, you have a right to life so long as you make choices that keep you alive.  However, if someone breaks into your house to rob you, so that they can obtain food for themself and their family, but then you shoot and kill them when a confrontation erupts...
1. The thief has infringed on your property rights (an extension of your right to life, the ability to trade your labor - your life's time and effort - for money or goods) to support his right to life.
2. You have infringed on the thief's right to life to defend your property rights.
Yes, there are other "choices" people can make in finding better ways to feed themselves, just as you can make better choices in where to live and how to lock your doors to reduce the chances you never have to shoot an intruder.  "Rights" are a made up concept, at a universal, planetary, or natural level they do not exist.  The insect's right to life ends in the fish's stomach, which ends in the seal's stomach, which in turn ends in the whale's stomach.  "Your property" is only yours because you claim it to be so, and you defend it as such.  Perhaps society would side with you in the argument should it arise.  However, rights only exist in our ability, as individuals and as a society, to define and defend them.  All of your rights cease to exist immediately should China nuke your hometown.

This can all be explained easily with the non-aggression principle. Do not initiate, or accept, aggression. If someone has broken into your house, they have aggressed on you, so you are within your rights to end that aggression. That person has taken their right to life and used it for nefarious reasons, and the consequences of such are on their head. Rights do exist as a construct of a sentient mind, but that doesn't make them any less valid.

Application to the animal kingdom is generous at best. Even in the animal kingdom, the prey often has methods of self-defense, and uses them to the best of their ability.

[TomKoz]

Still doesn't answer original question, Why hasn't "shall not be infringed" been bright before the SC?

[TyGuy]

It has.  Read the Heller decision.  They speak to the right not being absolute.

Edited by TyGuy, Today, 01:30 PM.

[TomKoz]

(Purple on). OH, I get it, cannot be infringed, but can be regulated.  (Purple off)

Edited by TomKoz, Today, 01:49 PM.

[TyGuy]

TomKoz, on 25 May 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

(Purple on). OH, I get it, cannot be infringed, but can be regulated.  (Purple off)

Hey man, it's not me it's SCOTUS.

[TomKoz]

Sorry.  It wasn't directed to you personally.

[BobPistol]

w00dc4ip, on 25 May 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

However, if someone breaks into your house to rob you, so that they can obtain food for themself and their family, but then you shoot and kill them when a confrontation erupts...

This is not about property rights, but rather that the guy turned violent toward me and I had to shoot him to protect myself.   I'm not going to shoot someone simply because they're stealing from me, but I will protect my family and myself. However, I will use force to get my property back - not deadly force, mind you, but I will keep him from leaving with my stuff.   If the thief then turns violent and tries to seriously hurt me or kill me, he's becoming a violent aggressor.   He no longer has the right to life because he has waived it.   He has sacrificed his life in a vain attempt to hurt or kill someone so he can commit a violent felony (something he has no right to do)

Edited by BobPistol, Today, 03:33 PM.