GOP should allow guns at convention

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.

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.

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.

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.

It has nothing to do with which rights I favor.

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

Destroying that society would be like hanging pirates.

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.

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.

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".

oralloy wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

That piracy is punishable by hanging is not a fantasy.

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

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.

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.

Inherent to precisely what?

How is this not just a declaration of a right you consider "fundamental"?

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

Upon what do you base this claim?

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.

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

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.

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.

Is "freedom" a fundamental human right?

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.

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.

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.

How can you guys keep doing that without getting dizzy?

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

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 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.

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.