Militia question 1

[shanek]

The first fact is of incomplete. The full truth is that in the US context, people are currently having a right by law to keep firearms, with very few restrictions. It is of course not to be expected that Claus can change these laws into laws that has far more useful restrictions in it. But he can be one of many voices rasing important questions, such as whether the right to bear arms is one that should be allowed in today's society.

Even considering the fact that Claus is not a member of this society?

1) How does restricting my rights to bear arms, especially handguns, actually infringe on my freedom?

Because it robs me of a very useful tool in defending my right to life.

2) Will owning a gun actually make you safer?

The statistics say yes. The statistics also say that not owning a gun in an area of gun ownership will make you safer as well, as the criminals don't know who has a gun and who doesn't.

Well, in most of the cases where such guns are used at all, the majority of uses will be either
a) An accidental misfiring. At best, this will lead to material damage, at worst, someone will get killed.
b) The gun is, along with other stuff, stolen during a burglary. Because most burglaries happen during daytime and without people being home. And as it is, it can even be used against the lawful owner of the gun during the burglary, which of course isn't the best thing to do.

Support your contention with relevant evidence.

And after this, in mere 2% of the cases where a gun bought for personal safety is used, it is used in accordance with the original intention: Stopping a burglar.

Support this as well.

What will make the insurance companies give you a discount for a house and inventory insurance? A burglary alarm, or a gun?

My insurance company didn't give me a discount for installing lightning rods and lightning arrestors, yet these do, in fact, make me safer.

 

[Mercutio]

I say you're wrong. The right to bear arms protects me even if I choose not to carry a gun, since those who would act violently against me have no idea if I'm one of the ones who carries a gun or not.

So, they act out of fear of your right, rather than fear of your gun? I guess that is why, with our right to bear arms, there are no violent acts here.

 

[shanek]

Oh, well, you can't compare rights and gravity, then.

You can't compare rights and jelly sandwiches, either. So what?

 

[shanek]

Indeed. It does seem to me as there is a certain amount of panic involved, when it comes to justifying where these "rights" come from. Since nobody will come out and admit that God gave them their rights (their skeptical image would immediately be shattered, so that's a no-no),

In his book, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking says that upcoming innovations in science will "help us know the mind of God." Is he a non-skeptical woo-woo?

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus knows perfectly well that, even if I were to receive a reply by the moderators, it would be in the form of a PM and it would be improper for me to divulge it.

Absolutely not. We are not talking about a mere PM, but a formal complaint to the administration of this board.

I have a right to know the decision of the admins.

Which is probably what he's counting on, because then if I actually answered his question, he'd go all over the board saying, "Shane posted publicly information from a private PM!"

Interesting how you already have dreamed up scenarios about how I would react. Interesting how it tries to paint me as a villain.

Claus is a woo-woo. The mods will do as they see fit.

Very well.

I would like the administration of this board to reveal their decision on shanek's complaint.

 

[Mercutio]

I am sure that, had these things the capacity, they would try--just like humans beings often try to violate the rights of others.

LOL...do we violate the "right to life" of plants and animals we consume? They live...by your logic that gives them an inherent right to life, does it not? Or are rights only human? Perhaps a social construct?

Just a bit of extra language on your part. When I go to the store, I excersize my right to go to the store. When I purchase a firearm, I excersize my right to do so.

I agree--it is just a bit of extra language. As you state it here, your rights are identical to your abilities. "Rights", then, add nothing to the situation.

I guess only because societies are constructed by humans who come with these rights pre-packaged.

Again, I think you are simply throwing words at a very simple concept.

The words which seem superfluous are those which speak of rights as inherent or prepackaged. Unless someone trots out some new examples, it would appear that the inherency of these rights is a purely circular concept.

 

[c0rbin]

In his book, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking says that upcoming innovations in science will "help us know the mind of God." Is he a non-skeptical woo-woo?

No, but due to his understanding of physics, he is the only person qualified to charter a government.

 

[CFLarsen]

In his book, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking says that upcoming innovations in science will "help us know the mind of God." Is he a non-skeptical woo-woo?

No. Why would he be? He doesn't say that science helps up know the mind of God. He is speaking of the future - and who knows what the future will bring?

 

[c0rbin]

LOL...do we violate the "right to life" of plants and animals we consume? They live...by your logic that gives them an inherent right to life, does it not? Or are rights only human? Perhaps a social construct?
[/B]

When a congress of horses express their will for self detirmination, I will listen. Until then you are free to swell the ranks of PETA.

I agree--it is just a bit of extra language. As you state it here, your rights are identical to your abilities. "Rights", then, add nothing to the situation.
[/B]

As stated earlier in this thread by others, the mere act of writing them down was a topic for debate.

The words which seem superfluous are those which speak of rights as inherent or prepackaged. Unless someone trots out some new examples, it would appear that the inherency of these rights is a purely circular concept.

I hesitate to add another metaphore (I had a good one about air, vibration, and sound) for fear we will spiral into its minutia.

I guess I must be satisfied in saying simply that Society did not give me the pre-disposition for unalienable rights.

 

[c0rbin]

No. Why would he be? He doesn't say that science helps up know the mind of God. He is speaking of the future - and who knows what the future will bring?

The point that was made was that Hawkings said that "God" would know what the future would bring.

For all of your preaching, you have an ironic ability to ignore the data that doesn't fit.

 

[CFLarsen]

The point that was made was that Hawkings said that "God" would know what the future would bring.

Hawkings is speculating. Nothing non-skeptical about that.

For all of your preaching, you have an ironic ability to ignore the data that doesn't fit.

How can I ignore "God", when I mention "God"?

 

[Mercutio]

When a congress of horses express their will for self detirmination, I will listen. Until then you are free to swell the ranks of PETA.

This further supports my contention that rights are indeed a social construct. (Do I detect a note of disparagement toward PETA? What is different between their contention that animals have inherent rights and yours that people do? I ask out of genuine curiosity, not rhetorically.)

I guess I must be satisfied in saying simply that Society did not give me the pre-disposition for unalienable rights.

As written...I agree.

 

[shanek]

No. Why would he be?

Because he mentioned "God," which, according to you, is all that is necessary. Backpedal away...

 

[shanek]

Hawkings is speculating.

Was he also speculating when he, playing off of Einstein's quote "God does not play dice with the Universe," said, "Not only does God play dice, but he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen"? That sounds pretty present-tense to me...

 

[shanek]

What is different between their contention that animals have inherent rights and yours that people do?

As I keep pointing out, animals cannot be held responsible for their actions.

 

[CFLarsen]

Because he mentioned "God," which, according to you, is all that is necessary. Backpedal away...

I am not "backpedalling" at all.

Can we know the existence of God in the future? I don't know. It is possible, sure.

 

[CFLarsen]

Was he also speculating when he, playing off of Einstein's quote "God does not play dice with the Universe," said, "Not only does God play dice, but he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen"? That sounds pretty present-tense to me...

Do you think it is possible that Hawkings is speaking metaphorically? Do you know if Hawkings believes in God at all?

 

[Jocko]

No. Why would he be? He doesn't say that science helps up know the mind of God. He is speaking of the future - and who knows what the future will bring?

Let me respond with your own words:

That is baloney. You cannot put whatever meaning you want into those documents.

Try again.

Hypocritical ass.

First you dismiss the mental capacity of the FF due to a lack of contemporary scientific understanding, then you backpedal on the very PARAGON of the qualifications you claim to demand!



You are too much, Claus. Don't change, baby, I love you the way you are.

 

[Jocko]

Do you think it is possible that Hawkings is speaking metaphorically? Do you know if Hawkings believes in God at all?

Maybe you could find out using the same psychic powers you used to divine the intent behind the FF's actions, or the clairvoyance you used to visualize Shane shooting you in Las Vegas.

Let us know what you come back with, tiger.

 

[Kodiak]

When a congress of horses express their will for self detirmination, I will listen. Until then you are free to swell the ranks of PETA.

Beautiful retort! A+!