Connecticut (et al)

[pErvinalia]

Seth, as a hypothetical question: were the 2nd Amendment to be repealed/changed, would you still ally yourself with the US Constitution? Would you choose to retain your guns, thus becoming an outlaw (as opposed to a "law-abiding gun owner")?

Since the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the Constitution, it is an inherent, natural and unalienable right, any repeal of the 2nd Amendment combined with attempts to debar me the possession and use of arms I deem necessary or desirable for my safety and the national defense would be a lawless violation of my rights and I would not acknowledge it nor would I obey any purported law requiring me to surrender my arms. Instead, I'd likely take the course of my forefathers and replace the form of government that did such a thing with another that better protects my rights, such as the one guided by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which I'm sworn to preserve, protect and defend.

Despotism and tyranny have no legitimacy and may be put down like one would dispose of a rabid dog, and with no more regret.

So the 2nd amendment and the constitution is really just a wash over your personal gun philosophy. Which is what you're really defending. Got it.

No, not my "personal gun philosophy," the right to keep and bear arms that accrues to every individual on the planet by virtue of their existence.

Well I'm coming to overthrow your gov, coz they are inhibiting my natural right to keep and bear nukes.

[Seth]

Seth, as a hypothetical question: were the 2nd Amendment to be repealed/changed, would you still ally yourself with the US Constitution? Would you choose to retain your guns, thus becoming an outlaw (as opposed to a "law-abiding gun owner")?

Since the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the Constitution, it is an inherent, natural and unalienable right, any repeal of the 2nd Amendment combined with attempts to debar me the possession and use of arms I deem necessary or desirable for my safety and the national defense would be a lawless violation of my rights and I would not acknowledge it nor would I obey any purported law requiring me to surrender my arms. Instead, I'd likely take the course of my forefathers and replace the form of government that did such a thing with another that better protects my rights, such as the one guided by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which I'm sworn to preserve, protect and defend.

Despotism and tyranny have no legitimacy and may be put down like one would dispose of a rabid dog, and with no more regret.

So the 2nd amendment and the constitution is really just a wash over your personal gun philosophy. Which is what you're really defending. Got it.

No, not my "personal gun philosophy," the right to keep and bear arms that accrues to every individual on the planet by virtue of their existence.

Well I'm coming to overthrow your gov, coz they are inhibiting my natural right to keep and bear nukes.

Good luck with that. Let me know where to send the flowers to your family.

[pErvinalia]

I'm disappointed Seth. I thought you were a champion for "natural rights". It seems Beatsong and I were right that principles have nothing to do with your philosophy. All your beliefs and choices are predicated on what is best for YOU, not a general principle (other than gross selfishness).

[Seth]

I'm disappointed Seth. I thought you were a champion for "natural rights". It seems Beatsong and I were right that principles have nothing to do with your philosophy. All your beliefs and choices are predicated on what is best for YOU, not a general principle (other than gross selfishness).

That happens to be true for every human being on the planet, bar none. It's a biological imperative. Anybody who says they are doing it for others is a liar, because at the core they are doing it for themselves, to satisfy some inner need of some kind. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

[klr]

I'm disappointed Seth. I thought you were a champion for "natural rights". It seems Beatsong and I were right that principles have nothing to do with your philosophy. All your beliefs and choices are predicated on what is best for YOU, not a general principle (other than gross selfishness).

That happens to be true for every human being on the planet, bar none. It's a biological imperative. Anybody who says they are doing it for others is a liar, because at the core they are doing it for themselves, to satisfy some inner need of some kind. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Bollocks. It would suit me personally to do a lot of things, but I don't do many of them, and not because they're illegal. There's such a thing as discipline and self-restraint in the interest of the common good.

[Blind groper]

No, not my "personal gun philosophy," the right to keep and bear arms that accrues to every individual on the planet by virtue of their existence.

In other words, a religious belief.
Seth. Let me make this clear. There is no God. Therefore, there are no God-given rights. What we call 'human rights' are, quite simply, the privileges that the people in power permit the people who are not in power to have. They vary from time to time, and place to place.

There is no 'inalienable' right to bear arms. There is simply a government, corrupt as hell, that has permitted people to bear arms because it met current expediency. To believe otherwise is a religious belief.

[pErvinalia]

I'm disappointed Seth. I thought you were a champion for "natural rights". It seems Beatsong and I were right that principles have nothing to do with your philosophy. All your beliefs and choices are predicated on what is best for YOU, not a general principle (other than gross selfishness).

That happens to be true for every human being on the planet, bar none. It's a biological imperative. Anybody who says they are doing it for others is a liar, because at the core they are doing it for themselves, to satisfy some inner need of some kind. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

So why do you bleat on and on about the principles of "natural rights" if you either don't believe them or you only selective decide to stand up for them?

[Blind groper]

How do you morally justify forcing Person A to pay for the needs of Person B against Person A's will?

Again, Seth, you are going all religious on us. "Morally' is a term related to religion. "Moral behaviour' is imply doing whatever you believe the deity of your choice is telling you to do. If you have no deity, as I do not, then there is no such thing as 'moral' behaviour.

However, if you behave in such a way as to benefit the people around you, this is called 'ethical' behaviour. Ethical behaviour has its origin in evolution. Since humans are gregarious and social, then cooperation, and working to help the group, are behaviours which assist in survival. So we have evolved the trend to help others.

Of course evolution permits substantial variation from person to person, and some people lack the instinct to help others. These people are known as psychopaths.

But for 'normal' people (not psychopaths) doing something to help other people is simply being ethical. Paying our taxes is ethical, since it helps others.

However, there is a reason for paying taxes that will appeal even to psychopaths. if you do not pay, you go to prison.

[Seth]

I'm disappointed Seth. I thought you were a champion for "natural rights". It seems Beatsong and I were right that principles have nothing to do with your philosophy. All your beliefs and choices are predicated on what is best for YOU, not a general principle (other than gross selfishness).

That happens to be true for every human being on the planet, bar none. It's a biological imperative. Anybody who says they are doing it for others is a liar, because at the core they are doing it for themselves, to satisfy some inner need of some kind. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Bollocks. It would suit me personally to do a lot of things, but I don't do many of them, and not because they're illegal. There's such a thing as discipline and self-restraint in the interest of the common good.

Everything you do is done to satisfy some internal need you have, therefore everything you do is based on what's best for you.

It matters not a whit that your internal need is to be a good socialist and act "in the interest of the common good," you still do it because it satisfies YOUR internal needs for conformity or something else. That it happens to be in the interests of the common good is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that's important is your internal motivations, which are entirely selfish in nature and origin.

[Seth]

No, not my "personal gun philosophy," the right to keep and bear arms that accrues to every individual on the planet by virtue of their existence.

In other words, a religious belief.
Seth. Let me make this clear. There is no God. Therefore, there are no God-given rights. What we call 'human rights' are, quite simply, the privileges that the people in power permit the people who are not in power to have. They vary from time to time, and place to place.

There is no 'inalienable' right to bear arms. There is simply a government, corrupt as hell, that has permitted people to bear arms because it met current expediency. To believe otherwise is a religious belief.

I disagree. My right to keep and bear arms has nothing whatever to do with God or any deity. It is derived from natural behavior of all living organisms. One might say that it's a "religious belief" because it is indeed "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience." So what? You're a religious believer too, in your own way. That doesn't mean that either of us places reliance or trust in a deity or god. That's "theism" not "religion."

You may believe that your rights are a privilege granted to you by "people in power" if you like. That just makes you a slave, and an idiot.

My rights exist as natural, inherent and unalienable because I claim them as such and I'm prepared to defend them against intrusions by others. Government grants me nothing by way of fundamental rights because government cannot grant what it does not have, and no government has "rights," they only have powers and authorities, and just governments only have those powers and authorities that are granted TO THE GOVERNMENT by the People, who are the source of all rights.

[pErvinalia]

I'm disappointed Seth. I thought you were a champion for "natural rights". It seems Beatsong and I were right that principles have nothing to do with your philosophy. All your beliefs and choices are predicated on what is best for YOU, not a general principle (other than gross selfishness).

That happens to be true for every human being on the planet, bar none. It's a biological imperative. Anybody who says they are doing it for others is a liar, because at the core they are doing it for themselves, to satisfy some inner need of some kind. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Bollocks. It would suit me personally to do a lot of things, but I don't do many of them, and not because they're illegal. There's such a thing as discipline and self-restraint in the interest of the common good.

Everything you do is done to satisfy some internal need you have, therefore everything you do is based on what's best for you.

It matters not a whit that your internal need is to be a good socialist and act "in the interest of the common good," you still do it because it satisfies YOUR internal needs for conformity or something else. That it happens to be in the interests of the common good is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that's important is your internal motivations, which are entirely selfish in nature and origin.

When the term "selfishness" is used, it's not used in the sense you are using it here - that is, everyone's primary behavioural goals are focused on the 'self'. It's used to mean the distinction between people who's actions benefit only themselves (more or less), as opposed to people who's actions also greatly benefit others.

[Blind groper]

My right to keep and bear arms has nothing whatever to do with God or any deity. It is derived from natural behavior of all living organisms.

Seth

The word "natural" relates to that which has been acquired by biological evolution.
Evolution takes tens of thousands of years to make any appreciable difference. Clearly, bearing arms cannot be anything to do with evolution, and therefore nothing about bearing arms is "natural".

So I am sorry, but your above statement is a load of garbage.

[Hermit]

My right to keep and bear arms has nothing whatever to do with God or any deity.It is derived from natural behavior of all living organisms.

Sure.

My rights exist as natural, inherent and unalienable because I claim them as such...

Well, how can one argue against a justification of that sort?

[pErvinalia]

yeah, it's ridiculous, isn't it?

[Blind groper]

Actually, anyone who claims that what is "natural" is better, has no conception of human progress. In days of great ancientness, when humans hunted mammoths, life spans were short, and most children born died within a year. Women died in childbirth, and the only thing keeping the human species going was that women stayed almost continuously pregnant from puberty until their early death.

"Natural" is bad. Artificial is good.

But having pointed that out, let me also say that there is nothing "natural" about bearing arms. Our evolution has not equipped us for it, either physically or mentally. Hence the fact that those who bear arms have a high rate of both committing murder and being murdered.