• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New Zealand Doesn't Hesitate to Ban Automatic Weapons

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes. But can you support yours? Since you made the claim we can hear your argument first.
I could. but I challenged your claim first. Of course since my post was so short it would be a paraphrase, but I would like to know how you thought my post to be wrong and if you can support your claims any more than just saying "Nuh uh".
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
This is incorrect. We need the bill of rights because a government can infringe upon rights. These rights were not thought to be granted by government. These rights were thought to be natural rights. This philosophy is very much embedded in the language of the constitution. There is not even a question regarding this. Certainly a government does grant some rights. Those are civil rights.
Wrong again. The founders realized this. They were "the government" at that time. Protections from the government have to come from the government. Otherwise there is no teeth to those "rights".
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I could. but I challenged your claim first. Of course since my post was so short it would be a paraphrase, but I would like to know how you thought my post to be wrong and if you can support your claims any more than just saying "Nuh uh".

Wrong again. The founders realized this. They were "the government" at that time. Protections from the government have to come from the government. Otherwise there is no teeth to those "rights".
Well you have already acknowledged the philosophy of natural rights was explicit in the declaration of independence. Is it your contention that a separate, contemporary document forged by the same group was written with a totallu different and mutually exclusive philosophy?

Please point to wear any right considered a natural right is granted by the constitution. You will not be able to do so. The constitution recognizes rights, it does not grant them. This is because these rights were viewed as natural rights.

For instance, we can look to the first ammendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

Nowhere do we see an endowment of a right. The rights that are discussed are believed natural rights. They existed without the government and the bill of rights sought to prevent the newly found government from infringing on such natural rights.

In fact, the 9th Ammendment states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This is precisely what you seek to do. You want to suggest that the rights "granted" are the rights possessed. Unfortunately this concept doesn't hold water. As we see in the 9th Ammendment rights are things that exist outside of constitutional grant. The constitution simply acknowledges them. And if the constitution does not specifically acknowledge them, they still exist.

So let us recap:
1) the constitution clearly acknowledges rights exist.
2) the constitution does not grant or endow some of these rights.
3) the constitution even acknowledges that there are rights that it did not specifically acknowledge (see 9th and 10th ammendments).
4) contemporary writings acknowledge and affirm natural rights.
5) you can show no evidence that the mutually exclusive belief that the founding fathers believed rights were created and granted by governments.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Yes. Agreed. Feral hogs have become a serious problem in my state of Missouri as well. It is to the point that in some locations it is wise to walk in the woods armed with a fairly potent handgun on the order of a .357 Magnum or something more powerful. Not all of us are good at climbing trees as we once were.

Oklahoma is getting bad. Been on a few hunting trips to Texas and they are worse. They are some destructive and mean critters and will keep coming even when shot and sometimes you shoot one, the pack comes after you.
 

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
From a US perspective, that is also more than a little troubling. It speaks of a leader than can move passed the will of the people, but this may not be a problem for the New Zealand democracy.
The will of the people is represented in the House of Representatives. New gun laws will not be enacted by a decree from the Prime Minister, but by a law passed by parliament. Incidentally, the Economist Intelligence Unit rated NZ the fourth most democratic country — the USA didn't make the top 20.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I've found that many endure, eg, the 1st.
The 3rd seems less useful.
The 2nd is a great example of why we need to actually update the Constitution. Local militias were more significant then, and the best weaponry available at the time is hardly better than a bow and arrow when compared to what the average civilian has access to today (and, realistically, a musket is much slower to reload and fire than a bow). When "the right to bear arms" was penned, shooting a target from over a mile away would have been unthinkable even to the finest military minds. Of course we still see many, many farmers and hunters using rifles and shotguns with no problems, but they really didn't have handguns back then and those are the most problematic when it comes to crime (overwhelmingly they are used more frequently than other types of firearms).
Cars are another good example, because they didn't exist at all back, and clearly and quite obviously there are those who are legally granted this privilege even though they have proven themselves too careless and reckless with it. And then when we do tell them no more we let them drive motorized scooters. *facepalm*
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
The will of the people is represented in the House of Representatives. New gun laws will not be enacted by a decree from the Prime Minister, but by a law passed by parliament. Incidentally, the Economist Intelligence Unit rated NZ the fourth most democratic country — the USA didn't make the top 20.
Good to hear. Democracies vary and are ongoing works. Still the best established form of government so far, based on the success of the countries that operate under it.

It is still impressive that New Zealand can get that turn around in very short time.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Oklahoma is getting bad. Been on a few hunting trips to Texas and they are worse. They are some destructive and mean critters and will keep coming even when shot and sometimes you shoot one, the pack comes after you.
About a year or so ago, I thought a change in career might be interesting, so I applied for a position with the Missouri Department of Conservation as the Feral Hog Coordinator for the southern region. Going for it was a bit of a lark and a stretch and I got the result I expected since the department was looking for someone with a conservation, management and wildlife background that I do not have, but it would have been a very interesting position to have had.

I did my homework and researched the subject and feral hogs are becoming a very widespread threat to native habitats, farms, wildlife, domestic hogs and people. Texas and Oklahoma rank well up there in having serious problems with them. It was some eye-opening research, since I was aware that they were a problem in Missouri, but was unaware of the extent.

Even hunting them for sport is a serious business and that is with the expectation of finding one and being prepared when you do. I have read reports of people just barely making it up a tree. I am getting too old to be as quick at that as I used to be. I would be carrying something that would help even my odds out considerably just for a walk in some areas.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The 2nd is a great example of why we need to actually update the Constitution. Local militias were more significant then, and the best weaponry available at the time is hardly better than a bow and arrow when compared to what the average civilian has access to today (and, realistically, a musket is much slower to reload and fire than a bow). When "the right to bear arms" was penned, shooting a target from over a mile away would have been unthinkable even to the finest military minds. Of course we still see many, many farmers and hunters using rifles and shotguns with no problems, but they really didn't have handguns back then and those are the most problematic when it comes to crime (overwhelmingly they are used more frequently than other types of firearms).
Cars are another good example, because they didn't exist at all back, and clearly and quite obviously there are those who are legally granted this privilege even though they have proven themselves too careless and reckless with it. And then when we do tell them no more we let them drive motorized scooters. *facepalm*
I like the 2nd as it is.
But cars don't require an amendment.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I like the 2nd as it is.
You might, but ultimately its language is too dated and too vague for the realities of today.
But cars don't require an amendment.
I think it is in dire need of being addressed, at least by the Supreme Court at the minimum, to keep dangerous drivers out of the driver's seat. It's a prime example of where America's red, white, and blue hard on for everything they want to insist is "my right" can go choke to death on apple pie. In the case of people insisting driving is a need and insisting they have to do it, to the point of implying/thinking it a right, clearly such an approach has proven itself far too dangerous to public safety, and there's a lot of people out there who need to have their license revoked.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member

I think it is in dire need of being addressed, at least by the Supreme Court at the minimum, to keep dangerous drivers out of the driver's seat. It's a prime example of where America's red, white, and blue hard on for everything they want to insist is "my right" can go choke to death on apple pie. In the case of people insisting driving is a need and insisting they have to do it, to the point of implying/thinking it a right, clearly such an approach has proven itself far too dangerous to public safety, and there's a lot of people out there who need to have their license revoked.
Driving isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Instead it's a privilege....a license, which can be revoked for cause.
If we can't get legislators to write laws taking the dangerous drivers
off the road, then we certainly can't amend the constitution to do it.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
then we certainly can't amend the constitution to do it.
We could, but people are terrified of social/collective responsibility and accepting the fact they may be one of those the rest of us need protected from. (it bothers me every time I'm cleared to drive without my glasses being required because I cannot clearly make out the letters on the vision test)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Well you have already acknowledged the philosophy of natural rights was explicit in the declaration of independence. Is it your contention that a separate, contemporary document forged by the same group was written with a totallu different and mutually exclusive philosophy?

Yes, the claims were in there. They were younger and perhaps more emotional at the time. By the time the Constitution was written they realized that simply declaring rights "unalienable" was not good enough.

Please point to wear any right considered a natural right is granted by the constitution. You will not be able to do so. The constitution recognizes rights, it does not grant them. This is because these rights were viewed as natural rights.

What do you mean by "natural rights"? Two out of the three in the Declaration of Independence clearly are not unalienable. They can and are taken away regularly. The only one that is rather difficult to take away is the "pursuit of happiness". Even someone on death row is free to do that. But as far as "life and liberty" go those can be taken away by the government and are at times.

For instance, we can look to the first ammendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

Nowhere do we see an endowment of a right. The rights that are discussed are believed natural rights. They existed without the government and the bill of rights sought to prevent the newly found government from infringing on such natural rights.

In fact, the 9th Ammendment states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This is precisely what you seek to do. You want to suggest that the rights "granted" are the rights possessed. Unfortunately this concept doesn't hold water. As we see in the 9th Ammendment rights are things that exist outside of constitutional grant. The constitution simply acknowledges them. And if the constitution does not specifically acknowledge them, they still exist.

So let us recap:
1) the constitution clearly acknowledges rights exist.
2) the constitution does not grant or endow some of these rights.
3) the constitution even acknowledges that there are rights that it did not specifically acknowledge (see 9th and 10th ammendments).
4) contemporary writings acknowledge and affirm natural rights.
5) you can show no evidence that the mutually exclusive belief that the founding fathers believed rights were created and granted by governments.

Sorry, you are using undefined terms which makes much of your argument void. You need to define exactly what you mean by "rights". What was recognized by the writers of the Constitution that the only way to guarantee rights is to have the government protect them. That was the purpose of the Bill of Rights.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
They did exactly what the terrorist wanted. Played like a harp /Plick!
Do you have evidence to support that was a motive? Seems to me they were more out just to cause as much death and injury as they possibly could.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Yes, the claims were in there. They were younger and perhaps more emotional at the time. By the time the Constitution was written they realized that simply declaring rights "unalienable" was not good enough.
Still waiting for you to in any way support the assertion that they believed all rights were granted by the government.
What do you mean by "natural rights"? Two out of the three in the Declaration of Independence clearly are not unalienable. They can and are taken away regularly. The only one that is rather difficult to take away is the "pursuit of happiness". Even someone on death row is free to do that. But as far as "life and liberty" go those can be taken away by the government and are at times.
I am not quite sure how you are trying to discuss the constitution without an understanding of natural rights. I would encourage you to read Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Hobbes on the subject. That life can be taken does not mean someone did not have a right to life.

Sorry, you are using undefined terms which makes much of your argument void. You need to define exactly what you mean by "rights".
It seems to me you are feigning ignorance instead of admitting you were wrong. Perhaps ask someone you trust to read my post and if it is unclear to them as well, determine what specifically you do not understand. Then, I will attempt to elaborate.
[/quote]
What was recognized by the writers of the Constitution that the only way to guarantee rights is to have the government protect them. That was the purpose of the Bill of Rights.[/QUOTE]
Lol, "the only way to guarantee rights is to have the government protect them," je says after telling me that I need to define exactly what I mean by "rights."

Either way, this sentence is very different than your earlier position that the writers of the constitution believed all rights were grants from the government.

So you believe that the government was merely using the constitution to guarantee grants which it endowed elsewhere? Please tell me qhere I can find these endowments? By what statute or document were they bestowed?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Still waiting for you to in any way support the assertion that they believed all rights were granted by the government.

You have not been paying attention. They are in the Bill of Rights. That was the work of the government. Though you may have your own strange definition of "rights".

I am not quite sure how you are trying to discuss the constitution without an understanding of natural rights. I would encourage you to read Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Hobbes on the subject. That life can be taken does not mean someone did not have a right to life.

You have not even been able to define "natural rights". They seriously do not appear to exist. And once again you are not paying attention. If one takes away someone else's life and can do so legally, such as an execution, then that was not an "unalienable right'.

It seems to me you are feigning ignorance instead of admitting you were wrong. Perhaps ask someone you trust to read my post and if it is unclear to them as well, determine what specifically you do not understand. Then, I will attempt to elaborate.
Lol, "the only way to guarantee rights is to have the government protect them," je says after telling me that I need to define exactly what I mean by "rights."

Either way, this sentence is very different than your earlier position that the writers of the constitution believed all rights were grants from the government.

So you believe that the government was merely using the constitution to guarantee grants which it endowed elsewhere? Please tell me qhere I can find these endowments? By what statute or document were they bestowed?

Nope, you have only not been paying attention again. You have made claims that you cannot support. You may not like the support that I gave my claims, but at least I am more consistent than you are.

Tell me, what do you think these "unalienable rights" are? Like it or not rights come from the government. You appear to be conflating morality with rights. They are not one and the same.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
You have not been paying attention. They are in the Bill of Rights. That was the work of the government. Though you may have your own strange definition of "rights".



You have not even been able to define "natural rights". They seriously do not appear to exist. And once again you are not paying attention. If one takes away someone else's life and can do so legally, such as an execution, then that was not an "unalienable right'.



Nope, you have only not been paying attention again. You have made claims that you cannot support. You may not like the support that I gave my claims, but at least I am more consistent than you are.

Tell me, what do you think these "unalienable rights" are? Like it or not rights come from the government. You appear to be conflating morality with rights. They are not one and the same.
You have given no support to your notion that all rights are granted by the government.

You are welcome to learn something here if you are willing. That will entail acknowledging that you were wrong.

Life, liberty, property and defense. You have a right to life; you have a right to liberty; you have a right to property; and, you have a right to defend these rights. From these rights other rights flow. For instance the right to thought or the right to justice. I can hardly explain the myriad philosophies behind natural rights in a post. There is no royal road here. You will have to learn the subject. I suggest starting with Kant. But, if you are merely trying to get a rough understanding, read Locke and Rousseau.

Like it or not, the drafters of the constitution believed in natural rights and sought to limit the government from infringing on those rights and the rights that flowed from them. This is why you will not find any government grant that gives the freedom of speech. Rather you will find the first ammendment which proscribes the government from prohibiting free speech; this is why the second Ammendment refers to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." The government never granted that right. It already existed as a consequence of the natural right to defend oneself.
 
Top