I’m unclear as to what we are disagreeing about. An inherent right to life would presumably be something things are bound to respect but that’s clearly untrue. What do you think it is?
Your second paragraph is essentially repeating my point.
I’m unclear as to what we are disagreeing about. An inherent right to life would presumably be something things are bound to respect but that’s clearly untrue. What do you think it is?So arguing that humans don't have inherent rights because we die from cancer isn't playing language games? At least I'm working within the framework we started with rather than creating strawmen.
And your presentation of other countries' Constitutions further proves my point, if the government doesn't actually stick to what the law says, the whole thing falls apart into a dictatorship (or some version of one).
Right to life, as in, without interference to life from the government. Right to free speech, without interference from the government. Right to bear arms, without interference from the government, etc.I’m unclear as to what we are disagreeing about. An inherent right to life would presumably be something things are bound to respect but that’s clearly untrue. What do you think it is?
Your second paragraph is essentially repeating my point.
In this case it's applicable. You created an argument nobody was making (right to life means inherent protection from natural and accidental causes of death), said it was my argument, then argued against it.On a separate note I find it annoying how often ‘straw man’ is exchanged with ‘thing I disagree with’.
Ok so you’re saying those rights are inherent against human created constructs that inherently are based on whatever we want. This makes no sense.Right to life, as in, without interference to life from the government. Right to free speech, without interference from the government. Right to bear arms, without interference from the government, etc.
In this case it's applicable. You created an argument nobody was making (right to life means inherent protection from natural and accidental causes of death), said it was my argument, then argued against it.
Then why does our declaration of independence claim all men are created equal? Not all men capable of defending themselves? Not even all citizens? EVERYONE.Ok so you’re saying those rights are inherent against human created constructs that inherently are based on whatever we want. This makes no sense.
We agree on this, I think your view is just naive. No rights are inherent. The only rights you get are the ones you fight to protect.
Used to be, only white men tbh. That was changed to reflect the statement, all men, then 'Men' as in mankind.I'm scared for the day that's literally interpreted to be only men. Maybe there can be a compromise.
I guess I would wonder why people so committed to the inherent right of liberty owned chattel slaves. Doesn’t seem so inherent, even to the people saying it!Then why does our declaration of independence claim all men are created equal? Not all men capable of defending themselves? Not even all citizens? EVERYONE.
I just heard on TV news that the toll for the 4th of July shooting is now 7 dead and 38 wounded.
Yup. A few of the stories they’ve mentionedIt's thousands of people that have had their lives forever altered. Every single time this happens.
Indeed, several of the founders had discussions on the topic, and eventually we rid ourselves of slavery and collapsed that particular irregularity in our understanding of 'all men'.I guess I would wonder why people so committed to the inherent right of liberty owned chattel slaves. Doesn’t seem so inherent, even to the people saying it!
Those rights sound a lot more like ones we grant each other than inherent ones.Indeed, several of the founders had discussions on the topic, and eventually we rid ourselves of slavery and collapsed that particular irregularity in our understanding of 'all men'.
It was settling on a middle ground with a large number of people who still thought owning people was acceptable, in order to form a new government. It's logically inconsistent to assume it was never intended to actually include all men.Those rights sound a lot more like ones we grant each other than inherent ones.
But we'll just say our thoughts and prayers to the 7 dead. Never mind the other 38 wounded. And their family. And everyone else that was there that now lives in terror of loud bangs and being in crowded places. And their family that experience that anxiety.
It's not just 7 deaths that statistics will try and neatly bundle this into. It's thousands of people that have had their lives forever altered. Every single time this happens.
it may not be the thing we wanted / but there’s finally enough to go around
from new york / to california / from detroit / down to the border
we all have more in common now than we do not
now everybody knows somebody (everybody knows somebody)
everybody knows somebody (everybody knows somebody)
everybody knows somebody
who got shot.
It’s definitely logically inconsistent!It was settling on a middle ground with a large number of people who still thought owning people was acceptable, in order to form a new government. It's logically inconsistent to assume it was never intended to actually include all men.
Yeah. And he is wrong. The Constitution never implied All men would be actually created equal in the future. It took a civil war to even make a baby step in that direction. It's an extremely flawed document that has not aged well at all. As we are witnessing right now. Unfortunately the system that it has created has now created a minority rule, in the minority is fascist and Christian theocratics, thus making it impossible to change to evolve with the modern times.It’s definitely logically inconsistent!
I think it espouses universal values to live up to that the people who wrote it weren’t good enough to do.Yeah. And he is wrong. The Constitution never implied All men would be actually created equal in the future. It took a civil war to even make a baby step in that direction. It's an extremely flawed document that has not aged well at all. As we are witnessing right now. Unfortunately the system that it has created has now created a minority rule, in the minority is fascist and Christian theocratics, thus making it impossible to change to evolve with the modern times.
It's pretty clear a lot of white Republicans today are starting to feel more like the founding fathers values than what we believe in now.
You can own an Uzi if it was made before 1986. You'll have to check the NFA for destructive devices like grenades,missiles, bombs, etc.All of this is just bullshit and noise.
We schedule and regulate drugs based upon lethalness and usefulness. We sorta kinda but don't really for guns. But sort of do since I can't own an Uzi or similar. I just think we need to crack down on scheduling and classifying weapons and adding AR style things to the naughty list. Much like cocaine. Doctors use it for a local anesthetic for eye surgery. But it's not really a good thing for every day Joe Blow to possess. I'd make the same argument for weapons of war.
Now I know you are just going to come back with some vague chart about "these are all the same thing" but I really don't care. If we want to fix things we can. We just don't want to. Or won't let other do it. Because...freedom or something.
By your logic shouldn’t restricting them violate the 2nd amendment? They are at least as common as repeating firearms in 1789.You can own an Uzi if it was made before 1986. You'll have to check the NFA for destructive devices like grenades,missiles, bombs, etc.
And another shooter box checked:
"The mayor said several of Crimo’s online postings 'reflected a plan and a desire to commit carnage for a long time in advance' ”
July 5, 2022 Highland Park, Illinois, parade shooting news
The Highland Park, Illinois, mass shooting suspect has been charged with seven counts of first-degree murder after at least seven people were killed at a July 4th parade on Monday. Follow here for the latest live news updates.www.cnn.com
Technically yes. The 2A should be further amended or repealed rather than trying to tweak what we thought the founders meant. Take it as it is, it take control.By your logic shouldn’t restricting them violate the 2nd amendment? They are at least as common as repeating firearms in 1789.
Repeaters were extremely rare - the providence of advanced militaries. You could easily say we have a right to HIMARS.
Lewis & Clark used wind rifles on their expedition. Never wanted to own an MLRS, but it might be classified as a destructive device under the NFA - tons of paperwork and probably tons of money.By your logic shouldn’t restricting them violate the 2nd amendment? They are at least as common as repeating firearms in 1789.
Repeaters were extremely rare - the providence of advanced militaries. You could easily say we have a right to HIMARS.
How about we just interpret every amendment the way the founders actually intended, which was to grow with the times.Technically yes. The 2A should be further amended or repealed rather than trying to tweak what we thought the founders meant. Take it as it is, it take control.