National Federal Judge Rules Felons Aren’t Protected by Second Amendment

[Yarome]

.....not that I'm disputing that in the US we do in fact have natural rights... be we have to be honest in the fact that those principles were ultimately created by "man" based on a mutually accepted founding belief system.

 

[RX-79G]

Whats an example of a natural right?

This goes back to the joke I made. "Dignity" is often listed as a natural right, while access to food or water is not.

All rights flow from being alive, yet you can legally starve or be killed in a country with mandate for human rights.

 

[The Heretic]

Whats an example of a natural right?

The right to self-defense

The right to freedom of speech

The right to equal treatment under the law

 

[CamoDeafie]

if the mother can choose then its not a right.

That's a huge, divisive debate that I'm not going into. Succinctly put, I personally am against the whole "mother's choice" thing.. IMO, along with my wife. And it's not for religious reasons

 

[The Heretic]

But remembering... that definition is crafted through the lens of those holding similiar beliefs and common perspective of the world as we know it.

Who is to say those natural rights are "universal" if they are not universally accepted as truth by all peoples. It's kind of like saying there is only one true God... and it's "mine".

Saying there are no Natural Rights is the same as saying there are no rights at all.

The BOR is based on the theory/belief of Natural Rights.

 

[Koda]

.....not that I'm disputing that in the US we do in fact have natural rights... be we have to be honest in the fact that those principles were ultimately created by "man" based on a mutually accepted founding belief system.

bingo.
its like, how is anything a "right" if its not agreed upon and enforced by others. When I think of the word "natural" I think of nature, or something instinctual probably for basic survival. We can take away someones freedom but we still feed them so perhaps the instinct to find food and eat is a natural right. Self defense could be argued that way.

 

[Koda]

That's a huge, divisive debate that I'm not going into. Succinctly put, I personally am against the whole "mother's choice" thing.. IMO, along with my wife. And it's not for religious reasons

To clarify Im not stating a position on abortion.
Im pointing out that the idea of "natural rights" is purely philosophical and can only exist if other people agree with what those are and are willing to enforce them for all.

 

[The Heretic]

I have to say I am a bit disappointed, but not surprised, that some of the people who argue for our 2A rights, do not know of or understand the political theory behind the BOR.

 

[RX-79G]

I have to say I am a bit disappointed, but not surprised, that some of the people who argue for our 2A rights, do not know of or understand the political theory behind the BOR.

It really isn't clear or simple. Philosophical notions often exist mainly in language rather than reality.

And allow people that own slaves to talk about human rights like they'd die for them.

 

[Koda]

I have to say I am a bit disappointed, but not surprised, that some of the people who argue for our 2A rights, do not know of or understand the political theory behind the BOR.

I would say that anyone who argues for our 2A rights agrees with the same interpretation of the political theory behind the BOR that you do.

And therin lies the problem of "natural rights", or any rights for that matter.

 

[Yarome]

Saying there are no Natural Rights is the same as saying there are no rights at all.

The BOR is based on the theory/belief of Natural Rights.

If you are saying that if the U.S.'s founding principles are not accepted by all populations of the earth... all fundamental human rights as anyone might define them are invalid... including the U.S.'s... I would disagree.

To me that's kind of like saying... if you don't believe in the God I believe in... no God exists.

We digress.....

Accepting that, regarless of all, inalienable rights in the U.S. exist, are well understood and established as the founding principles of the country.... it is also accepted that through the process of law, some rights can be forfeit. Done primarily through personal choice of the individual. After all.... one of those "natural rights" is in fact... free agency. Correct?

 

[The Heretic]

If you are saying that if the U.S.'s founding principles are not accepted by all populations of the earth... all fundamental human rights as anyone might define them are invalid... including the U.S.'s... I would disagree.

To me that's kind of like saying... if you don't believe in the God I believe in... no God exists.

We digress.....

Accepting that, regarless of all, inalienable rights in the U.S. exist, are well understood and established as the founding principles of the country.... it is also accepted that through the process of law, some rights can be forfeit. Done primarily through personal choice of the individual. After all.... one of those "natural rights" is in fact... free agency. Correct?

I am saying that some people have made the assertion that Natural Rights do not exist because governments "can take away" those rights. Or putting it another way; they assert that no rights exist because all rights can be taken away.

The fact that a some people here have asked what Natural Rights are, while still arguing for 2A rights, indicates to me that those people do not understand the history of the BOR in the US Constitution, or even the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Now maybe they were being rhetorical or facetious, but I don't believe so - I have encountered too many people who do not understand Natural Rights, much less delved into the history of them and the BOR.

I have also encountered people who assume/assert that all of the rights in the BOR only apply to US citizens, which indicate to me they don't understand Natural Rights or probably never heard of them.

 

[Koda]

I am saying that some people have made the assertion that Natural Rights do not exist because governments "can take away" those rights. Or putting it another way; they assert that no rights exist because all rights can be taken away.

no, well myself Im not saying that, Ive stated that natural rights is a philosophical idea. But we have rights, at least ones codified in law.

The fact that a some people here have asked what Natural Rights are, while still arguing for 2A rights, indicates to me that those people do not understand the history of the BOR in the US Constitution, or even the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

is owning an inanimate object invented by another person a natural right?
I agree that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights, and the 2A is a constitutional right put there to preserve those unalienable rights.

 

[RX-79G]

I am saying that some people have made the assertion that Natural Rights do not exist because governments "can take away" those rights. Or putting it another way; they assert that no rights exist because all rights can be taken away.

The fact that a some people here have asked what Natural Rights are, while still arguing for 2A rights, indicates to me that those people do not understand the history of the BOR in the US Constitution, or even the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Now maybe they were being rhetorical or facetious, but I don't believe so - I have encountered too many people who do not understand Natural Rights, much less delved into the history of them and the BOR.

I have also encountered people who assume/assert that all of the rights in the BOR only apply to US citizens, which indicate to me they don't understand Natural Rights or probably never heard of them.

I don't think "understanding" natural rights and the philosophical underpinnings of such notions are something many people of capable of. These are not obvious or easily relatable concepts.

Which is why articulatable rights, like the BoR, are a good idea. You don't need to understand philosophy to be able to point to a law and ask for its protections.

 

[The Heretic]

I don't think "understanding" natural rights and the philosophical underpinnings of such notions are something many people of capable of. These are not obvious or easily relatable concepts.

I don't think it is that difficult to understand; it is pretty straight forward.

I think the problem is people are lazy thinkers - if they think at all.

 

[The Heretic]

is owning an inanimate object invented by another person a natural right?

Possession of property is a Natural Right yes, one that is often explicitly mentioned in discussions of Natural Right theory.

 

[RX-79G]

I don't think it is that difficult to understand; it is pretty straight forward.

I think the problem is people are lazy thinkers - if they think at all.

I think it is difficult to understand. The people that invented these ideas wrote books that scholars still study and debate. The core concepts are subtle, not obvious. They are attractive because they grant people things they desire, but their basis in logic is fuzzy.

Possession of property is a Natural Right yes, one that is often explicitly mentioned in discussions of Natural Right theory.

Like this. Why should owning stuff be a natural right? There's nothing natural or divine about possessions.

It is just convenient to say that owning things is a universal right. And a modern perspective.

 

[Koda]

Possession of property is a Natural Right yes, one that is often explicitly mentioned in discussions of Natural Right theory.

Natural Right theory is based on philosophical beliefs, which Ive stated above. That said, it appears your right about possession of property is a Natural Right. Appreciate the dialog tonight and insight.

 

[Koda]

Like this. Why should owning stuff be a natural right? There's nothing natural or divine about possessions.

Because humans cannot survive without owning things. Clothing is a prime example and a natural one. This is what differentiates us from other species.

 

[RX-79G]

Because humans cannot survive without owning things. Clothing is a prime example and a natural one. This is what differentiates us from other species.

But we're talking about individual human rights. For most of history people largely had communal ownership of possessions - often in the form of the leader controlling the ownership.

We like personal ownership, but it isn't the only or most ethical way to deal with the need to have things.


This is the kind of stuff about natural rights that no one really wants to think about.