9
   

GOP should allow guns at convention

 
 
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2016 05:00 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
First of all, my point was that in the US, it is generally believed that the Declaration of Independence is our creed, and the Declaration does describe these rights as inherent. Inherent doesn't have to be interpreted in a religious sense.


They are described in said document in a religious sense. And without that context inherent rights doesn't make any sense. If the rights are not endowed by a creator then they are obviously just a sociological construct that obviously evolves over time.

Quote:
This indicates that the human condition somehow does produce some common ideas about ethics which most people share, so that it isn't really just a matter of negotiation.


That humans have a propensity to agree on certain ethics and morals doesn't invalidate the notion that for anything to become a "right" it must be negotiated with the society and without which it is just one person's desire.

Quote:
It is not true that any set of rights or laws which were negotiated would be viewed by society as the end of the discussion.


I agree, and never said otherwise. I hold that all rights, no matter how fundamental or important we may hold them to be, are sociological constructs. They cannot exist without societal negotiation and said negotiation is ongoing. Rights that did not exist in the past now do, rights that existed in the past now do not. Rights are not magical and are only a set of rules that people agree on to grant each other said rights.

Quote:
Most people share a few basic ideas of right and wrong which don't depend on the results of a negotiation. For example, most people feel that any creature has the right to defend itself and its family members. If you do believe this, then it follows that people have the right to the means to defend their own safety and the safety of their families.


These shared instincts do not change that for them to become actual "rights" we have to codify them as such in a society and agree to keep them. They do not magically enforce themselves and even though nearly all humans innately want certain rights they all come at a cost and society agrees to maintain them or they do not exist.

Most people innately have a sense of property and desire property rights. But our right to our property depends on society negotiating, agreeing to, and codifying this right. Otherwise it would merely depend on who is the strongest and our property rights would be trampled upon by the opportunistic.

The point is that no matter how "inalienable" one views any rights to be, no matter how essential and fundamental, they are quite demonstrably alienable, and this is obviously hyperbole and not to be taken literally. This language being used is meant to indicate how strongly these individuals viewed the need for these rights but can't be taken literally to pretend that the process through which rights are secured does not need to happen for them to have any meaning in a society.

All human rights are sociological constructs that are negotiated, codified and that continue to be negotiated and codified. None magically exist without this process though there are definitely instincts that are shared across most humans about what some of the basic ones should be.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2016 05:04 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
It has nothing to do with which rights I favor.


Well that is all that you bring to the table. You basically declare an ipse dixit of which rights are "inherent" and then just say anyone who disagrees must be converted at "gunpoint" etc. You are basically just stating your preferences for rights and offering nothing more than inordinate strength of conviction to substantiate their desirability.

Quote:
If a society were to negotiate away the very rights that justify that society's existence, then that society would become outlaws.


According to you. According to them they are often just fine. For example there are plenty of gun-free societies that are doing great despite the absence of a "right" you think is inherent to "freedom" and that must be enforced "at gunpoint".

Quote:
Destroying that society would be like hanging pirates.


Exactly, a fantasy for imaginative minds. You aren't gonna hang pirates and you don't get to decide, at gunpoint or otherwise, what all societies decide to do in regard to gun rights. The societies will negotiate and codify these rights and your bluster about their destruction is just hot air that they will ignore.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2016 07:33 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
Well that is all that you bring to the table. You basically declare an ipse dixit of which rights are "inherent" and then just say anyone who disagrees must be converted at "gunpoint" etc.

I've not specified which rights were inherent. I merely pointed out that there are in fact inherent rights.

For the record though, the right to defend yourself when someone is harming you is one of those inherent rights.


Robert Gentel wrote:
You are basically just stating your preferences for rights and offering nothing more than inordinate strength of conviction to substantiate their desirability.

No. I am stating the legal fact that there are rights that are inherent. It is part of the basic foundation of every system of law on the planet.


Robert Gentel wrote:
oralloy wrote:
If a society were to negotiate away the very rights that justify that society's existence, then that society would become outlaws.

According to you. According to them they are often just fine.

Pirates think they are just fine too. It doesn't stop the rest of humanity from hanging them.


Robert Gentel wrote:
For example there are plenty of gun-free societies that are doing great despite the absence of a "right" you think is inherent to "freedom"

I disagree with your assessment that they are doing great. A life without freedom is without meaning.


Robert Gentel wrote:
and that must be enforced "at gunpoint".

Hold on a minute. The rights that other countries must adopt on pain of destruction are the ones that are fundamental to human existence. I never said that right to carry guns in public was one of those rights.

The right to carry a gun when you go about in public comes from English Common Law. A Common Law right is quite different from a fundamental human right.


Robert Gentel wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Destroying that society would be like hanging pirates.

Exactly, a fantasy for imaginative minds.

That piracy is punishable by hanging is not a fantasy.


Robert Gentel wrote:
You aren't gonna hang pirates

No, but the governments of the world will.


Robert Gentel wrote:
and you don't get to decide, at gunpoint or otherwise, what all societies decide to do in regard to gun rights. The societies will negotiate and codify these rights

True. But when it comes to fundamental human rights, the whole of humanity has decided that all societies will adopt them, at gunpoint if necessary.


Robert Gentel wrote:
and your bluster about their destruction is just hot air that they will ignore.

That is wrong. If any country were ever to choose to violate fundamental human rights, the rest of the world would quickly act against them.
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2016 07:59 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
I've not specified which rights were inherent. I merely pointed out that there are in fact inherent rights.


And it doesn't matter whether you specify them or not, it's plainly obvious that there are no such thing as "inherent" rights and that people who describe such things are just using hyperbole to say rights that they reeaaaally reaally like.

Quote:
For the record though, the right to defend yourself when someone is harming you is one of those inherent rights.


Inherent to precisely what? How is this not just a declaration of a right you consider "fundamental"?

Quote:
No. I am stating the legal fact that there are rights that are inherent.


How is it a "legal fact" that they are "inherent" (inherent to what)? Upon what do you base this claim?

Quote:
It is part of the basic foundation of every system of law on the planet.


It is only so as a sociological construct, it didn't magically appear so societies agreed to establish this right. It has also evolved over time, from not existing at all to being equated with defense of property in Roman times.

You are basically saying you find this right essential, but you are using "inherent" instead to describe it.

Quote:
Pirates think they are just fine too. It doesn't stop the rest of humanity from hanging them.


Nobody is hanging pirates anymore and this whole line of discussion was a pointless exercise in your fantasy life.


Quote:
I disagree with your assessment that they are doing great. A life without freedom is without meaning.


The key thing that matters is that they think they are doing great and your opinion on the matter is not relevant to them.

Quote:
Hold on a minute. The rights that other countries must adopt on pain of destruction are the ones that are fundamental to human existence. I never said that right to carry guns in public was one of those rights.


That is good to hear but you frequently equate gun rights to "freedom", which is typically considered one of those fundamental rights.

Quote:
A Common Law right is quite different from a fundamental human right.


They are not mutually exclusive but that isn't relevant to this discussion. Is "freedom" a fundamental human right?

Quote:
That piracy is punishable by hanging is not a fantasy.


I'm talking about your fantasy life, you have nothing to do with hanging pirates either, just like you don't get to dictate everyone's rights etc. You talk about it a lot and this is just an active fantasy life.

Quote:
But when it comes to fundamental human rights, the whole of humanity has decided that all societies will adopt them, at gunpoint if necessary.


This is actually a very fluid time for these fundamental human rights when it comes to global enforcement and things are just not as straightforward as you make them out to be. It is true that in very recent human history (2005) the world (as defined by the UN) has agreed upon a convention called R2P (Responsibility to Protect) that outlines an obligation to intervene against genocide, ethnic cleansing etc but even then the world does not establish this right consistently and will frequently ignore this obligation in situations such as Syria.

Quote:
That is wrong. If any country were ever to choose to violate fundamental human rights, the rest of the world would quickly act against them.


This is a fantasy instead of the real world. Fundamental human rights are violated on a routine basis with relative impunity. Your notion that the rest of the world will simply "destroy" the society etc or hold it at "gunpoint" is just tough-guy talk in the place of the helplessness that often is the real world.

In the real world nations like North Korea have infringed on fundamental human rights for decades and there is no simple "just shoot em up" solution to it. That is because these rights are not magical, they take hard work that is often incremental and halting.
snood
 
  3  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2016 08:27 pm
How can you guys keep doing that without getting dizzy?
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2016 08:32 pm
@snood,
Eh, even though I'm prone to repeating myself I figured that last round was too much. Going to move on to more edifying discussions.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2016 02:09 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
And it doesn't matter whether you specify them or not,

That's good. I don't actually have a list on hand. I know that "the right to defend yourself when someone is trying to harm you" is one such right, but I am not prepared to list all the others.


Robert Gentel wrote:
it's plainly obvious that there are no such thing as "inherent" rights

If certain rights are removed from a society, that society will lose its justification for existing and it will become OK to destroy that society.


Robert Gentel wrote:
and that people who describe such things are just using hyperbole to say rights that they reeaaaally reaally like.

I doubt that the legal philosophers who created humanity's systems of laws included these rights based simply on how much they liked them. They seemed to base the inclusion of these rights on the logical justification for having a system of laws.


Robert Gentel wrote:
Inherent to precisely what?

To humanity.


Robert Gentel wrote:
How is this not just a declaration of a right you consider "fundamental"?

I am not the one who made this right fundamental to the existence of society. That was done by the legal philosophers who created humanity's systems of laws in past centuries. All I'm doing is reporting on the state of humanity's legal systems.


Robert Gentel wrote:
How is it a "legal fact" that they are "inherent" (inherent to what)?

Inherent to humanity.

It is a legal fact because every legal system on the planet includes these rights as part of its basic foundation and justification for existing.


Robert Gentel wrote:
Upon what do you base this claim?

Upon the writings of the legal philosophers who created the foundation of humanity's legal systems.


Robert Gentel wrote:
It is only so as a sociological construct, it didn't magically appear so societies agreed to establish this right. It has also evolved over time, from not existing at all to being equated with defense of property in Roman times.

As sociological constructs go, this one is pretty fundamental. Any society that does away with these rights can be destroyed as if they were a band of pirates.


Robert Gentel wrote:
You are basically saying you find this right essential, but you are using "inherent" instead to describe it.

I don't know how you can get any more inherent than a requirement that the right must exist in every legal system.


Robert Gentel wrote:
Nobody is hanging pirates anymore and this whole line of discussion was a pointless exercise in your fantasy life.

The legal basis for hanging pirates still exists, even if it is currently unused.

I did not fantasize that there is legal justification for hanging pirates. There really is legal justification for hanging pirates.


Robert Gentel wrote:
oralloy wrote:
I disagree with your assessment that they are doing great. A life without freedom is without meaning.

The key thing that matters is that they think they are doing great and your opinion on the matter is not relevant to them.

I'm not so sure that that is the key thing that matters. That a serf is happy with a meaningless life in some ways makes the whole thing even more tragic.


Robert Gentel wrote:
oralloy wrote:
A Common Law right is quite different from a fundamental human right.

They are not mutually exclusive but that isn't relevant to this discussion.

A fundamental human right applies to all humans and can never be removed.

A common law right only applies to a subset of humans, and it can be repealed (though not so easily in the US).


Robert Gentel wrote:
Is "freedom" a fundamental human right?

I don't know.


Robert Gentel wrote:
I'm talking about your fantasy life,

The legality of hanging pirates is not the product of my imagination.


Robert Gentel wrote:
you have nothing to do with hanging pirates either, just like you don't get to dictate everyone's rights etc.

I never claimed I had anything to do with hanging pirates. I am capable of referring to legal concepts without having participated in them.

I never claimed to dictate anyone's rights. These rights were dictated by legal philosophers centuries ago. What I do is make factual statements regarding the state of our legal system.


Robert Gentel wrote:
You talk about it a lot and this is just an active fantasy life.

I did not imagine these facts about our systems of law. The facts are all quite real.


Robert Gentel wrote:
This is actually a very fluid time for these fundamental human rights when it comes to global enforcement and things are just not as straightforward as you make them out to be. It is true that in very recent human history (2005) the world (as defined by the UN) has agreed upon a convention called R2P (Responsibility to Protect) that outlines an obligation to intervene against genocide, ethnic cleansing etc but even then the world does not establish this right consistently and will frequently ignore this obligation in situations such as Syria.
Robert Gentel wrote:
This is a fantasy instead of the real world. Fundamental human rights are violated on a routine basis with relative impunity. Your notion that the rest of the world will simply "destroy" the society etc or hold it at "gunpoint" is just tough-guy talk in the place of the helplessness that often is the real world.

In the real world nations like North Korea have infringed on fundamental human rights for decades and there is no simple "just shoot em up" solution to it.

I find the examples of North Korea and the bad guys of Syria to be quite apt examples for my point about societies that have the same legal status as a band of pirates.

The fact that a band of pirates is powerful enough to prevent anyone from going in and hanging them does not change their legal status as a band of pirates.

If someone were strong enough and willing to conquer North Korea and Syria and hang all the bad guys for their atrocities (after fair trials of course), that would be a boon for humanity would it not?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2016 02:11 am
@snood,
snood wrote:
How can you guys keep doing that without getting dizzy?

I just answer each point in sequence and always refer to the facts.

Then I hit the reply button when I get to the end of the post.

The relentless focus on facts is key. If you always stick to the facts, no matter how convoluted a discussion gets you always end up OK.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2016 04:35 am
@Robert Gentel,
I believe that the 2nd Amendment expresses an "inherent" right in the sense that most people believe that every creature has the right to defend itself, its family, and perhaps its loved ones. Somehow, the human condition causes most people to feel that this is a basic right. The fact that the right needs codification by a government to be well protected doesn't negate this. The government is then simply recognizing an inherent right.
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2016 04:50 am
@Brandon9000,
The right does not exist inherently (i.e. permanently, inexorably), you may posit that the desire for the right is a universal condition but not all universal desires become "rights". After all we mostly all don't ever want to die or see our loveed ones die for because society is unable to grant us this "right" is is just a fundamental desire or need. It only becomes a right upon acceptance and codification by society.

The universal desire to be free always existed but the sociological construct of the right did not always exist. The same is true with all rights, each had to be codified by societies because all rights are easily infringed upon.

In any case this is a profitless logomachy at this point. I understand your position and just think you are using inaccurate language to describe it but am not going to try to change your mind, in previous debates on this subject in a2k the folks who understand rights never did get the others to use them as sociological constructs distinct from fundamental desires that we all hold as deserving of codification as a right and many of them are things we most just accept as inevitable when it is not exactly so.

I still remember my mind being blown as a kid when learning that property rights, which I found instinctual and nonnegotiable, were in fact transitive rights granted to me by my society and if it chose to abolish private property in favor of a communal economy the "right" I thought unalienable became quite so. I realized that no matter how much I hold that right yo be fundamental it depends entirely on my society granting it to me. Otherwise the only right is that might makes right.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2016 01:04 pm
@Brandon9000,
The second amendment clearly does express an inherent right. Throughout the original constitution and bill of rights, rights and prohibitions are given. It's only in the 2nd that an existing right is confirmed.

Even many plants have a means of self defense.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2016 11:00 pm
@roger,
Which could be changed if enough people get tired of gun nuts offing people just for the fun of it.
snood
 
  5  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 08:41 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Which could be changed if enough people get tired of gun nuts offing people just for the fun of it.

I remember thinking like that - if enough people got sick of it, things would change. Then Sandy Hook happened, and every poll for months afterward showed up to 90% of people wanted to enact meaningful gun reforms like limiting magazine size, outlawing military-style assault weapons, etc. Ninety percent of the Americans polled (across parties) could not overcome the power the NRA lobby has over our lawmakers. So much for the power of popular opinion.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 08:46 am
@snood,
I think everybody remembers that if they were honest. It was disheartening to realize the NRA had so much power over so many members of congress. If any event in the US gun violence history had the power to change the minds of lawmakers, Sandy Hook should have been the one.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 02:01 pm
@snood,
I think it will take time. I didn't even expect public opinion in the US to evolve the way it has recently in my lifetime, and gun control was never much of an issue for me because it seemed so completely off the table. I bet in a generation or two the US will continue to trend toward more regulation, as almost all developed (and most undeveloped) nations have.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2016 02:50 pm
@snood,
I dident say would, I said could. Who knows, maybe there will be a shooting so horrible that it will finally get the attention of everyone rather just the rational people.
Lilkanyon
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2016 06:23 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

I dident say would, I said could. Who knows, maybe there will be a shooting so horrible that it will finally get the attention of everyone rather just the rational people.


I knew this would be a hot topic, and if Sandy Hook didnt wake people up, idk what will. I heard time and time again about how the "govt will take our guns". And thats a bunch of fear mongering propoganda. Time and time again, Ive had to tell people the FBI wont be breaking into your house pell mell because you bought a legal gun. Its a shame how our own citizens have ceased to trust their own govt that they fight for, go to war for, die for. But in their own homes, they have become paranoid because of weird situations like Waco.
Ive had to explain, that noone will lose their legal guns if they obey the law. Dont hold up a 7/11, and noone will take your guns.
snood
 
  3  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2016 06:36 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

I dident say would, I said could. Who knows, maybe there will be a shooting so horrible that it will finally get the attention of everyone rather just the rational people.


It would have to be pretty horrific if 20 children getting slaughtered wasn't enough.
0 Replies
 
Lilkanyon
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2016 06:42 pm
@Lilkanyon,
Lilkanyon wrote:

RABEL222 wrote:

I dident say would, I said could. Who knows, maybe there will be a shooting so horrible that it will finally get the attention of everyone rather just the rational people.


I knew this would be a hot topic, and if Sandy Hook didnt wake people up, idk what will. I heard time and time again about how the "govt will take our guns". And thats a bunch of fear mongering propoganda. Time and time again, Ive had to tell people the FBI wont be breaking into your house pell mell because you bought a legal gun. Its a shame how our own citizens have ceased to trust their own govt that they fight for, go to war for, die for. But in their own homes, they have become paranoid because of weird situations like Waco.


Ive had to explain, that noone will lose their legal guns if they obey the law. Dont hold up a 7/11, and noone will take your guns.


Yup, guess 20 kids didn count. I was shocked at the NRA answer. Teachers should have guns now! I callex the school. If you do this, I will pull my kid out. No way in hell I will trust a teacher with a gun.. Its beyond ridiculous now.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2016 07:35 pm
@Lilkanyon,
But you trust them with your children?

(low blow, huh?)
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 02:22:08