SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[von Pilsner]

Why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up his or her natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order.

The social contract is an intellectual construct that typically addresses two questions: first, that of the origin of society, and second, the question of the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.

It has been going on for a long time.

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by von Pilsner

Why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up his or her natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order.

The social contract is an intellectual construct that typically addresses two questions: first, that of the origin of society, and second, the question of the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.

It has been going on for a long time.

ROFL doublethink much??

so we give up our freedom and submit to PROTECT our rights ???

really?? how does that work...


the ONLY social contract that i agree to is to not infringe or encroach on the rights of others, and to follow all contracts i knowingly and voluntarily enter into...

[Hood]

Originally Posted by tk471138

first of all govt DO NOT grant rights....(well unless you are a slave they dont)

nor are they or should they be in the business of taking away creator endowed rights...

DUDE i have already stated this ONCE we DO NOT live in a democracy...the whims of the majority have NO bearing on my innate rights and freedom....the majority can not decide all of a sudden to take the rights of the minority away...and even if such a law were to pass, it would be null and void...

Governments do grant rights or they allow the existence of an assumed right. Governements in most first world countries make the law, nobody else does (with a few exceptions). The US government allows you to keep your rights. See what rights a citizen has in the USA - freedom of speech is a good start.

Creator endowed rights? This presupposes the existence of a "creator" doesn't it? As I'm not religious this kinda passes me by. There are no natural "rights" at all - there is no supreme being saying "Thou shalt have the ability to munch popcorn on a Saturday." At least, not in my eyes. Now if you think a creator gave you "rights", and I say it/he/she etc didn't, that leaves a thorny problem doesn't it.

On a reflective note I do sometimes wish that I had enough faith to justify a religion. But I don't.

And you do live in a democracy, such as it it. If you feel so angry about it you can of course take your guns and march on the White House. I'll keep watching the news for it.

As for von Pilsner's post, he got it pretty much right. Its a trade off between safety and order. Sure you can do whatever you like but then there is anarchy. Or you can conform with society's "rules" and accept restrictions for safety's sake. Simple really.

Hood

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by Hood

Governments do grant rights or they allow the existence of an assumed right. Governements in most first world countries make the law, nobody else does (with a few exceptions). The US government allows you to keep your rights. See what rights a citizen has in the USA - freedom of speech is a good start.

Creator endowed rights? This presupposes the existence of a "creator" doesn't it? As I'm not religious this kinda passes me by. There are no natural "rights" at all - there is no supreme being saying "Thou shalt have the ability to munch popcorn on a Saturday." At least, not in my eyes. Now if you think a creator gave you "rights", and I say it/he/she etc didn't, that leaves a thorny problem doesn't it.

On a reflective note I do sometimes wish that I had enough faith to justify a religion. But I don't.

And you do live in a democracy, such as it it. If you feel so angry about it you can of course take your guns and march on the White House. I'll keep watching the news for it.

As for von Pilsner's post, he got it pretty much right. Its a trade off between safety and order. Sure you can do whatever you like but then there is anarchy. Or you can conform with society's "rules" and accept restrictions for safety's sake. Simple really.

Hood

wow yet another....misinformed sheep, that thinks that their rights are granted by govt....

the reason it says creator endowed rights (here we go again restating what i already said) means that it comes from an authority HIGHER than govt....your creator can be Allah, Jesus, Yahweh, your parents, who ever......

sorry but the highest LAW in MY land says otherwise....you are wrong...perhaps you are beholden to your govt and its whims but i am not....

lol and people keep saying that i live in a democracy....as if this notion of mob rule, and being subject to the whims of the majority is a good thing....


i guess if the majority vote to take your property, i guess that means you must submit....

democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner...


why dont you post law and case law that proves your collectivist dogma....o wait i seem to be the only one who can do that....


if you rely on your govt to ALLOW you to exercise your innate rights or freedom then you have the status of a slave on the land, beholden to their master....


using actual case law to prove my point....
In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly "The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."


our rights are innate meaning even the constitution DOES NOT grant them...our rights and our freedom come from an authority higher than govt....and would exist even if govt didnt....

[Hood]

Originally Posted by tk471138

wow yet another....misinformed sheep, that thinks that their rights are granted by govt....

the reason it says creator endowed rights (here we go again restating what i already said) means that it comes from an authority HIGHER than govt....your creator can be Allah, Jesus, Yahweh, your parents, who ever......

sorry but the highest LAW in MY land says otherwise....you are wrong...perhaps you are beholden to your govt and its whims but i am not....

lol and people keep saying that i live in a democracy....as if this notion of mob rule, and being subject to the whims of the majority is a good thing....


i guess if the majority vote to take your property, i guess that means you must submit....

democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner...


why dont you post law and case law that proves your collectivist dogma....o wait i seem to be the only one who can do that....


if you rely on your govt to ALLOW you to exercise your innate rights or freedom then you have the status of a slave on the land, beholden to their master....

But there is no national authority higher than the government of the land. Ignoring international courts of course. I'm not convinced tht my parents are a higher authority than the governemnt of the UK. Perhaps you'd expand on that? Likewise, I can't see (put your deity of choice here) mulling over sub-clauses and sub-sections in statutes.

If you're taking the creator bit from...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

...then you must be gullible because you've accepted as truth what a bunch of guys in the 1700s said.

If you can prove the existence of a "Creator" then fine, but I can't find anywhere written in the stars that there is any such thing as an unalienable right. There are no such rights except for those "granted" by the government of the day. The funniest thing is that you refer to it as a LAW when laws are what governments make.

So far as guns are concerned, you probably don't even realise that the arms manufacturing lobby is one of the most powerful there is (they probably have more money and better able people than the government) and they're chip-chip-chipping away at you all the time.

It seems to me you've been brainwashed, and that's worse than being a sheep. Prove that you have rights granted by a creator and not created by a bunch of guys in the 1700s that laid down rules how society should operate. You can't. I'd bet that when your rights are infringed by others that you bleat for help.

Oh, and I think the constitution of the USA and the Bill of Rights are amazing things written by some extraordinary people, but they are not immutable. I'd like to re-visit this thread in 100 years.

Hood

ps Baaaaaah

pps I love the case quotes. Who decides what the rights are? People of today or documents created in the 1700s? Who decides what the "plain and obvious principles of common right etc..." are? Right or wrong, it is fallacious to suggest that there are rights and freedoms coming from an authority higher than government. Whoever it/she/he is they haven't stepped in in Rwanda, Iraq, Afghaistan, USA, Nazi Germany, South Africa, Guantanemo Bay, the Soviet Union etc etc etc. But of course in those countries no such rights exist/ed when they were needed so that pokes a large hole through the Creator argument.

[WTE_Galway]

The modern tendency towards Textualism is always a problem with dated legislation, it tends to encode and exaggerate drafting errors and is often used to endorse interpretations completely at odds with the original drafters intent.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by tk471138

its not hypocrisy....these people dont want to ban guns cuz of public safety(only the "useful idiots" believe this) , they want to disarm the public for various reasons, and they want to tear down one of the main protections the people have against criminals both those in govt or on the street and to eliminate what is known as the "teeth" to the constitution...

its not hypocrisy at all they dont care about public safety, they go incrementally until the people can no longer defend it self from determined criminals or the state...

you know first bans on automatic weapons seems reasonable, and then next its bans on assault rifles and then any kind of weapon the military uses and all these seemingly reasonable things to the common person, will eventually come full circle making all non muzzle loading fire arms illegal...

that is why ANY attempt to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is unacceptable... (not just muzzle loading muskets or hand guns or bolt action or semi auto or automatic, but all arms)

with out looking at the law i seem to recall that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. it does not read "can be infringed a little bit incrementally"

I asked this already (see below) but I'd be interested to know if you mean that literally? Including AT missiles, SAMs? And taken to its conclusion, if there is to be no limit at all, nuclear weapons?

If you stop short at any point then there is a restriction and a limit.

If there is a limit, who decides where it should be?

I presume that you would agree that it would be crazy to allow individual private citizens to purchase and own nuclear weapons?

Originally Posted by kendo65

If the right to bear arms is God-given, or a basic human right, is there a limit in your opinion to what type of weaponry an individual citizen should be able to own?

(This next question might seem crazy, but parts of it have already been touched upon in this thread)
Should people be able to own anti-tank missiles, or SAMs? Is there a limit? If so who decides where that limit is? How do we interpret just where God intended that limit to be drawn? (very genuinely, I'm not trying to be facetious here. Just I don't know that is is spelt out anywhere).

If there is absolutely NO limit then are we prepared to allow people access to small nuclear devices? If we don't are we infringing their freedom?

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

The modern tendency towards Textualism is always a problem with dated legislation, it tends to encode and exaggerate drafting errors and is often used to endorse interpretations completely at odds with the original drafters intent.

Agreed


its both the upside and downside of the judiciary




With all this talk of "democracy" and "freedoms", I'm reminded of this quote...

Apologies to the original author and for not remembering where I saw it, it could have been here:

Democracy: Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch
Liberty: A well armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote

[von Pilsner]

There is no inalienable right to own a grenade launcher, the grenade launcher is a construct of society and not a natural resource... Its manufacture, sale, and use can be legally restricted within a society as that society sees fit. Here is one of those restrictions: National Firearms Act part 26 U.S.C. 5845, 27 CFR 479.11

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Agreed


its both the upside and downside of the judiciary

In Australia the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 specifically instructs the judiciary to consider other related evidence rather than relying solely on the exact wording of the legislation in isolation:

ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15AB
Use of extrinsic material in the interpretation of an Act

(1) Subject to subsection (3), in the interpretation of a provision of an Act, if any material not forming part of the Act is capable of assisting in the ascertainment of the meaning of the provision, consideration may be given to that material:

(a) to confirm that the meaning of the provision is the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision taking into account its context in the Act and the purpose or object underlying the Act; or

(b) to determine the meaning of the provision when:

(i) the provision is ambiguous or obscure; or

(ii) the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision taking into account its context in the Act and the purpose or object underlying the Act leads to a result that is manifestly absurd or is unreasonable.

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the material that may be considered in accordance with that subsection in the interpretation of a provision of an Act includes:

(a) all matters not forming part of the Act that are set out in the document containing the text of the Act as printed by the Government Printer;

(b) any relevant report of a Royal Commission, Law Reform Commission, committee of inquiry or other similar body that was laid before either House of the Parliament before the time when the provision was enacted;

(c) any relevant report of a committee of the Parliament or of either House of the Parliament that was made to the Parliament or that House of the Parliament before the time when the provision was enacted;

(d) any treaty or other international agreement that is referred to in the Act;

(e) any explanatory memorandum relating to the Bill containing the provision, or any other relevant document, that was laid before, or furnished to the members of, either House of the Parliament by a Minister before the time when the provision was enacted;

(f) the speech made to a House of the Parliament by a Minister on the occasion of the moving by that Minister of a motion that the Bill containing the provision be read a second time in that House;

(g) any document (whether or not a document to which a preceding paragraph applies) that is declared by the Act to be a relevant document for the purposes of this section; and

(h) any relevant material in the Journals of the Senate, in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives or in any official record of debates in the Parliament or either House of the Parliament.

Subsection (1)(b)(ii) above would be quite relevant to this discussion.