• 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
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.
Of course I have. You missed it. Go back and read the posts again. And you do not seem to understand what "unalienable" means. They are rights that supposedly can't be taken away. Like it or not if the government executes someone legally they have taken away the supposed "right to life". The drafters of the constitution may have believed in the rights that you mentioned, they also realized that without government support that they did not exist. You are acting like a Sovereign Citizen telling a police officer that he "Knows his rights". With your rights codified into law they cannot be protected. The framers of the constitution realized this which is why they included the Bill of Rights. You can caterwaul all you like about having those rights but if the country one lives in does not support them they do not exist.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
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.

As per his manifesto.

"Why did you choose to use firearms?

I could have chosen any weapons or means. A TATP filled rental van. Household flour, a method of dispersion and an ignition source. A ballpeen hammer and a wooden shield. Gas, fire, vehicular attacks, plane attacks, any means were available. I had the will and I had the resources. I chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United States and thereby the political situation of the world. The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines. With enough pressure the leftwing within the United States will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the rightwing within the US will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty. This attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the US along cultural and racial lines."
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Of course I have. You missed it. Go back and read the posts again. And you do not seem to understand what "unalienable" means. They are rights that supposedly can't be taken away. Like it or not if the government executes someone legally they have taken away the supposed "right to life". The drafters of the constitution may have believed in the rights that you mentioned, they also realized that without government support that they did not exist. You are acting like a Sovereign Citizen telling a police officer that he "Knows his rights". With your rights codified into law they cannot be protected. The framers of the constitution realized this which is why they included the Bill of Rights. You can caterwaul all you like about having those rights but if the country one lives in does not support them they do not exist.
It is truly amazing how wrong you are but still fail to admit it. This os not just a misunderstanding on your part. Though I shouldn't be, I am amazed at how little people know about the constitution, let alone the philosophy behind it.

Your failure to support you position and your lack of willingness to learn are truly unfortunate in this situation.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It is truly amazing how wrong you are but still fail to admit it. This os not just a misunderstanding on your part. Though I shouldn't be, I am amazed at how little people know about the constitution, let alone the philosophy behind it.

Your failure to support you position and your lack of willingness to learn are truly unfortunate in this situation.
You have yet to demonstrate it one iota. You have been confused by philosophy. It appears you do not understand the difference between "ought to" and "is". What you call "rights" are nice feelings and they should be generally protected. But like it or not rights come from those that have power over you. That is the real world. The writers of the Constitution realized this, and that is why a Bill of Rights was included. It would do no good to shout "I know my rights" if no one will support you in those rights.

I am not the one that is blind here. Your ideas are nice, but they are not supported by the real world.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
You have yet to demonstrate it one iota. You have been confused by philosophy. It appears you do not understand the difference between "ought to" and "is". What you call "rights" are nice feelings and they should be generally protected. But like it or not rights come from those that have power over you. That is the real world. The writers of the Constitution realized this, and that is why a Bill of Rights was included. It would do no good to shout "I know my rights" if no one will support you in those rights.

I am not the one that is blind here. Your ideas are nice, but they are not supported by the real world.
Did you read the paper I posted? Have you read any paper on the subject? You seem most uninformed.

Our discussion is limited to what the drafters of the constitution believed and wjat is evidenced by their writings. You have offered nothing except the speculation that they matured between the writing of the declaration of independence and the constitution. Beyond this most laughable thought, it has been crickets regarding evidence.

You were wrong, proved wrong, and now want to trade barbs instead of deal in substance. Whether you admit it hear or not I hope you recognize what natural rigjts are and the importance of the to the drafters of the constitution.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
The American bill of rights is based on and very similar to the one written to keep King Billy,(Willim and Mary) in line.
Which was written to prevent the abuse of his power. And protect individual rights. And the power of parliament.
It is still in use today.
However we do not have a written constitution, as all governments are soverign and are not bound by the actions or laws of previouse ones.

Even our bill of rights has been extended and superceded by the newer EU wide human rights legislation,
Though post brexit this could be changed all or in part.
 
Top