Iowa FTW

[Semicolon]

"Law" and "right" are two different concepts. People have certain rights no matter what the law says.

Everyone has the "right" to defend themselves

Not everyone is legally able to do everything that everyone else is able to though. And for sensible reasons.

A convicted sociopath shouldn't be allowed a gun. Most people would agree with that. That's just sensible. Of course he is still a human being who has the right to defend himself, but the law is there to protect everyone else as well as him.

That's what Im saying.

In terms of rights, you're wrong. Everyone has the same rights.

Convicts shouldn't be allowed guns during the terms of their punishment. The difference is that the criminal chose to commit a crime.

[TheoK]

Adam isn't a philosopher 

[Adam]

"Law" and "right" are two different concepts. People have certain rights no matter what the law says.

Everyone has the "right" to defend themselves

Not everyone is legally able to do everything that everyone else is able to though. And for sensible reasons.

A convicted sociopath shouldn't be allowed a gun. Most people would agree with that. That's just sensible. Of course he is still a human being who has the right to defend himself, but the law is there to protect everyone else as well as him.

That's what Im saying.

In terms of rights, you're wrong. Everyone has the same rights.

Convicts shouldn't be allowed guns during the terms of their punishment. The difference is that the criminal chose to commit a crime.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well here. I'm not sure where I was wrong with that. I agree that everyone has the same rights. I said that at the start of my post.

Everyone has the same rights, yes.

ie everyone has the right to defend themselves

That does not necessarily mean everyone can legally do everything everyone else can do though.

ie people with certain disabilities cannot drive

[Adam]

Adam isn't a philosopher 

and you are?

[TheoK]

Sic! Philosophus Romanus sum 

[RageBeoulve]

"Law" and "right" are two different concepts. People have certain rights no matter what the law says.

Everyone has the "right" to defend themselves

Not everyone is legally able to do everything that everyone else is able to though. And for sensible reasons.

A convicted sociopath shouldn't be allowed a gun. Most people would agree with that. That's just sensible. Of course he is still a human being who has the right to defend himself, but the law is there to protect everyone else as well as him.

That's what Im saying.

In terms of rights, you're wrong. Everyone has the same rights.

Convicts shouldn't be allowed guns during the terms of their punishment. The difference is that the criminal chose to commit a crime.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well here. I'm not sure where I was wrong with that. I agree that everyone has the same rights. I said that at the start of my post.

Everyone has the same rights, yes.

ie everyone has the right to defend themselves

That does not necessarily mean everyone can legally do everything everyone else can do though.

ie people with certain disabilities cannot drive

Hence my skill and aptitude assessment proposal. Just sayin.

[Semicolon]

"Law" and "right" are two different concepts. People have certain rights no matter what the law says.

Everyone has the "right" to defend themselves

Not everyone is legally able to do everything that everyone else is able to though. And for sensible reasons.

A convicted sociopath shouldn't be allowed a gun. Most people would agree with that. That's just sensible. Of course he is still a human being who has the right to defend himself, but the law is there to protect everyone else as well as him.

That's what Im saying.

In terms of rights, you're wrong. Everyone has the same rights.

Convicts shouldn't be allowed guns during the terms of their punishment. The difference is that the criminal chose to commit a crime.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well here. I'm not sure where I was wrong with that. I agree that everyone has the same rights. I said that at the start of my post.

Everyone has the same rights, yes.

ie everyone has the right to defend themselves

That does not necessarily mean everyone can legally do everything everyone else can do though.

ie people with certain disabilities cannot drive

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.

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.

[odeon]

I could kill you with a pencil. Just sayin.

Yep. But a pencil is not designed as a weapon. And of all its uses, killing is not really up there near the top.

We'v been over this before.

A bible isn't designed as toilet paper either, but it gets the job done just fine. Yes we've been through this Adam, but this argument hold absolutely no weight with me. I'm sorry, but this point of view just seems absolutely incoherent with reality. Objects are not just what you want them to be, and neither is the physical world. Even if it was somehow possible to ban guns, and also keep criminals from getting them, the killings would not stop by a longshot.

Something else is causing this problem, and nobody seems to want to admit it because they know that a social problem is a lot more difficult to address than simply the removal of an object.

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

[odeon]

Adam isn't a philosopher 

Neither are you.

[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.

[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.

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.

ok I guess this is where we disagree then. i dont view carrying a gun as a right.

[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.

ok this is pretty much what i was thinking. way too tired to be posting in here now. see ya, guys.

[TheoK]

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.

[TheoK]

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.

[Semicolon]

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.