As I said. NO SOLUTION. We are all going to keep our guns, and shops will sell even more... The slaughter of children, shoppers, churchgoers. etc. will also continue, ad infinitum in the game of American roulette, in which we all are unwitting players,because people are unpredictable or evil or both, and anyone proposing legislative solutions this century or the nest is just full of shit - switch channels.
tiglath
The gun debate is the most pathetic political issue from a logical point of view.
When will a gutsy politician assert unequivocally the evident truth that the gun
problem CANNOT be fixed. IT'S TOO LATE.
For the simple reason that there are ALREADY more guns than people in the US.
Say that liberals get their dream legislation and guns are banned, just as they
are most countries. Then what?
Who is going to go around the homes collecting guns? Even if they used tanks and the army to do it, they would fail.
The ONLY solution is for a few generations to die and new ones begin to figure
out that IF guns made people safe, the US would be the safest place on Earth by orders of magnitude. Is it? Let the data answer the question.
Do people really NEED to shoot prairie dogs and other varmint? One of the usual excuses of why guns are essential.
When new generations start thinking and acting according to these answer, then
a solution will be discernible at the end of a long tunnel, and finally by the year
2222 or so, guns may become illegal in the US, with widespread popular support.
Engineers may try to come to the rescue and fix things partially, let us say that they
adapt ankle bracelet technology to guns and we can trace guns so that if one enters
a prohibited place, a courthouse, school, etc., the police can respond to violations.
As far as freedom lovers go, tracing a gun is no less repressive than having a smart
phone, which allows to trace the carrier, ditto for users of any computer with an IP
address connected to the Internet.
The slaughter of children, shoppers, churchgoers. etc. will also continue, ad infinitum
in the game of American roulette, in which we all are unwitting players, because people
are unpredictable or evil or both,
tiglath
Who is going to go around the homes collecting guns? Even if they used tanksWhich is the entire point of the right to keep & bear arms.
and the army to do it, they would fail.
The ONLY solution is for a few generations to die and new ones begin to figureThe devil is in the details. Young Black-American males account for over half
out that IF guns made people safe, the US would be the safest place on Earth
by orders of magnitude. Is it? Let the data answer the question.
the murders in the U.S. despite being something like 2-3% of the population.
If you only look at White murder rates, we're on par with Belgium and Canada.
Clearly, guns aren't the problem.
Do people really NEED to shoot prairie dogs and other varmint? One of the usual excuses of why guns are essential.It's not about hunting. Self defense is a natural human right, thus the right to
keep and bear arms is also natural human right.
That sure worked out well in Uvalde Texas, amiright? Where the cops sat outside the
school for over 40mins while the killer had free reign to do whatever he wanted.
because people are unpredictable or evil or both, and anyone proposing legislative solutions this century or the nest is just full of shit - switch channels.
As I said. NO SOLUTION. We are all going to keep our guns, and shops will sell even more... The slaughter of children, shoppers, churchgoers. etc. will also continue, ad infinitum in the game of American roulette, in which we all are unwitting players,
Yet other nations with powerful gun laws have not descended into
anarchy.
Americans have too much freedom.
tiglath
Ed Stasiak
Which is the entire point of the right to keep & bear arms.
Reasonable people admit that the Second Amendment needs amending
because of obvious truths.
When it was written, they were considering muskets and 18th century arms technology. Would the venerable authors of the Second Amendment write it
as it is in our world today?
And when the public is being slaughtered continually by mass murder enabled by legal rapid firing weapons
If you make the argument that civilians need rifles and pistols to protect themselves against the government, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
This is an historically unneeded protection.
I feel safer in my Tuscany home with a stick behind the door, than I do in Virginia with 20 guns in the house.
Do you need any more evidence that THE REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD,
to see this point? Travel helps.
As I said before, dark skin pigmentation DOES NOT induce people to become murderers.
When people face a bleak future because of discrimination, crime becomes
very tempting, if not the only way out of abject poverty.
Homo Sapiens from other countries have trigger fingers to shoot just like us, Americans. They have good and bad tempers like us, they have sane and insane people like us, they also have lots of black people and drug prohibitions also,
yet, they do not have a gun problem.
Rights are a man-made thing. No such thing.
I love America, but let us call a spade a spade. What are the chances that on guns all other civilized countries are wrong and we are right?
tiglath
Rights are a man-made thing. No such thing.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 7:40:43 PM UTC-4, Ed Stasiak wrote:control, not the control of nature. In that sense and only in that sense, it can be natural to bear arms, because it's been in the culture a long time. But that is not what you meant, I think.
You should read the references you post.tiglathhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights
Rights are a man-made thing. No such thing.
The first and foremost definition of the word 'natural' is:
"Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."
Therefore, rights given by nature as opposed to given by humankind don't exist. If they did, a smart man like you would be able to enumerate them.
Can you?
Rights are moral or legal entitlements to have or obtain something, and that does not describe any part of nature, biology or the physical laws.
The other meaning of 'natural' is 'according to custom,' which has nothing to do with nature. In that sense, there are certainly many rights according to custom, and all can be denied (alienable), because they are abstract human concepts under our
The belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment is always something that can be challenged. Some kings believed they had a natural right to a bride's first night, and the concept was open to challenge.nature bestows no rights at all, according to the definition of the word.
You cannot challenge nature and natural things. Xerxes and Caligula tried and whipped the sea.
The Constitution's "self-evident truth that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is just a piece of wishful thinking, no less that a belief in benevolent gods.
It''s a well-intention lie/inaccuracy, an untrue belief of great utilitarian value and the more people who respect it the more beneficial. But nature has NOTHING to do with it, including the right to bear arms, sorry. No such right in nature., in fact,
People misuse words all the time for good and bad purposes. "Natural," "divine," sacred," are some of the the words people use to persuade others. Nothing more. We all do it, as did philosophers and politicians since antiquity. It doesn't matter whosays it, saying something man-made is natural, doesn't make it so, and never will.
Today Lavrov said that Russia didn't invade Ukraine, and went on to misuse other words too. Break a leg.
One needs to be aware of these things, to sort the grain from the straw, lest one be swept by any charlatan that saunters by.
I have nothing more to say about guns. Thank you for your replies.
On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 7:05:57 AM UTC+1, te...@tiglath.net wrote:
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 7:40:43 PM UTC-4, Ed Stasiak wrote:
Here we go again .....
Massively detailed "logical" arguments from both sides.
For what it's worth, from a Brit who has much visited and loves (most of!) USA life ...
So many USites of all ethnics, ages etc. have the cowboy complex - it's as simple as that.
It's an endearing (maybe necessary) trait that has driven much of USA history and dynamics.
It covers guns, attitudes to central powers, defence of property, go-get materialism, ever-ready hospitality and generosity (well, often!) ... well, you carry on the list.
You'll never lose it. You probably shouldn't lose it. But it means continued gun ownership - and the continuation of all those other allied traits, good and bad.
I love yer, folks, but there are some wrong bits, as with us all! :-))
tiglath
Ed Stasiak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights
Therefore, rights given by nature as opposed to given by humankind don't exist. If they did, a smart man like you would be able to enumerate them.
Can you?
The Constitution's "self-evident truth that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is just a piece of wishful
thinking, no less that a belief in benevolent gods.
I have nothing more to say about guns. Thank you for your replies.
tiglath
Ed Stasiak
Therefore, rights given by nature as opposed to given by humankind don't exist. If they did, a smart man like you would be able to enumerate them.
Can you?Sure; you have a natural right to defend yourself,
it cannot be "illegal"
In that case, I graciously accept your surrender on this issue.
The questions Ed raises are quite interesting and if you know a law or philosophy student, they can give you the full monty.abilities must be prohibited and certain needs repressed for the common good.
Moral justification of our actions stem from need and ability. Let us remember that it is logical to argue from the general to the particular, but not the other way around.
Individually, you do something because you can or need to. But once people live together, tribes, countries and societies discover that it is a bad idea to let individuals exercise every ability or satisfy every need, and arguably, certain particular
Here are some silly but real examples of things that are morally justified IN GENERAL, but illegal or immoral in PARTICULAR cases.No? Students do it all the time.
You NEED to eat. But you can't have a meal in a restaurant and stiff the waiter.
You NEED to drink. But you cannot steal a six-pack from the liquor store.See above.
You NEED to breath. But you cannot rip the oxygen tank off the back of another diver.Oxygen? Nightclubs have fumes and fog. And there's always autoerotic asphyxiation.
You NEED to defend yourself. But you cannot do it in ways highly risky to by-standers.Target practice improves the odds.
You NEED to fuck. But you can't rape.Tell that to my girlfriend. I have been tied up!
You have the ABILITY to reach out and grab that heavenly ass. But if you do, you'll be committing a crime.Only if it's a boy's.
...themselves if they need to, whether they are able to do so or not, but only IN GENERAL.
Self-defense comes under this banner, you may need to defend yourself to survive, and that is enough to make it morally justifiable IN GENERAL, but not in every particular case. Ed is correct, individuals should not be prevented from defending
But that is not what Ed is really arguing. He argues a PARTICULAR case of self-defense - with a FIREARM.And if you are a prize fighter or a karate expert your fists and feet, yet again, merit additional consideration if you harm others with them outside sports.)
A firearm it's not like a fist to punch or a foot to kick, it is a particular human contraption made for a single lethal purpose, and societies are free to attach to their use PARTICULAR considerations according to the effects of its use on society. (
But what you cannot do is argue from the PARTICULAR case that because firearms may be prohibited, it means that you are prevented to defend yourself IN GENERAL. Full stop. That is incorrect. It means that you are unable to defend yourself WITH CERTAINFIREARMS ONLY. There are millions other ways to defend yourself that are still permitted.
Therefore, the argument that we can't defend ourselves if guns for self-defense are prohibited is completely bogus. It's a fallacious instance of arguing from the particular to the general. You'll be laughed at by polite and educated company each timeyou make that argument.
And I repeat. Ed should read his own references.of the divine, all human lives are sacred and of infinite value compared to any created object, meaning all humans are fundamentally equal and bestowed with an intrinsic basic set of rights that no human can remove."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights
[MY CAPS]
"NATURAL RIGHTS are those that are NOT DEPENDENT on the laws or customs OF ANY particular culture or GOVERNMENT, and so are universal, [...] Natural law is the law of natural rights."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights
Don't take my word for it, Ed, YOUR REFERENCE tells you that the 2nd Amendment IS NOT a natural right, because it depends on the LAWS OF A GOVERNMENT.
(I don't expect you to admit it, though, so relax).
Furthermore, on NATURAL LAW...
"The foundation for natural law as a consistent system was laid by Aquinas, as he synthesized ideas from his predecessors and condensed them into his "Lex Naturalis". St. Thomas argues that because human beings have reason, and because reason is a spark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_lawalready stated. In short, if it's man-made it's not natural.
As you can see Natural Law has nothing to do with nature, but it is of religious provenance. Which is the same as saying is man-made. Divine, sacred, "natural", is all in the same vein, and it contradicts the first definition of 'natural,' which I
"All human lives are sacred and of infinite value," is the big clue. Is nature acting in that spirit, you think?
A big wind blows from A to B in a hurry, and thousands of people die in hurricanes. The Earth bowels fart, and the Vesuvius blankets whole towns in 800 degrees ash. Sacred?
I see only two options. Are you religious or naive?
On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 18:55:53 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
You NEED to fuck. But you can't rape.Tell that to my girlfriend. I have been tied up!
You have the ABILITY to reach out and grab that heavenly ass. But if you do, you'll be committing a crime.Only if it's a boy's.
I see only two options. Are you religious or naive?
The true universal question is....
Are you happy?
tiglath
There are certainly cases when persons have defended themselves successfully with a gun,
but I fear they are statistically insignificant in relation to the amount of guns bought for the
purpose of self-defense, and the benefits of that SECOND (or third) seat belt.
tiglath
tiglath
What happened to you? You used to be able to make a decent argument.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 546 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 25:01:12 |
Calls: | 10,390 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 14,064 |
Messages: | 6,417,033 |