Meanwhile 30,000 people die each year from guns, and both policing and race relations keep getting worse.
Always appreciate a good reductio ad absurdum.
Sorry, I don't mean to be rude but this is bullshit. No 'rights' naturally exist, they are all creations of human design. Go tell a rabbit it has the natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness before a hawk tears its face off for dinner.
I could also argue that we have done that, that the only reason our nation isn't the one the Framers envisioned is because we haven't abided by the words of the Constitution, and that if we would get back to actually abiding by that old document the country would be a better place.
You're right, it is absurd to argue that a government remove natural rights from someone. That's how revolutions begin. You over in the UK should know something about that, yes?Always appreciate a good reductio ad absurdum.
1) Humans are not rabbits
I wouldn't be too smug, given how long you lot continued slavery after we abolished it, and then continued to hold minorities in a subservient societal position for another century after that.
Humans are an animal like any other. Luckily we're an animal that was fortunate enough to be in a unique place on the evolutionary chain to build a world that suits our every need at the expense of all the other species. There was a time when even homo sapiens was just scrabbling around for survival, and the idea of 'natural rights' would have been as ridiculous then as it is to a rabbit today.
So as we see changes are quite possible. Also important to note that the interpretation and application of the constitution can change over time without the need to amend it.
No argument there. Slavery was an abomination. As I said before, my country has (and has had) its problems, and I have no reservation against acknowledging them.
I'm content with my belief that some rights are inalienable and that just governments are instituted by men to ensure their protection.
Agreed.
Indeed. Slavery is old. It's very hard to think of a successful empire throughout history that didn't do slavery. Bristol in the UK, where I live, was exporting slaves to the Viking settlement of Dublin up until shortly after the Norman invasion in 1066. It was outlawed here by William II but by the early 19th century had become an important link in the infamous triangular trade route of guns to west africa, slaves to the new world, and sugar and tobacco back to Bristol. There's a pub in the city called the Seven Stars with a strong connection to abolitionists like Clarkson. He put his life in serious jeopardy recording interviews with sailors who had worked on slave ships. Those interviews had a major influence on the abolition of slavery. I'm happy to say that Bristol is today a well integrated society with a diverse cultural background; a great place to live regardless of race, ethnicity or religion. The rejection of slavery no doubt played a big part in that.
I read a good bit about him when I was doing work on my masters. His research went on to help and influence Wilberforce in his arguments in Parliament.
We lost our colonies because of Kentonio's rudeness?!?!?
The rudeness of calling natural rights "bullshit" and stating that natural rights don't exist seems to be something that is still hanging around across the pond.
I have always found Kentanio a bit Rude and Cocky tbf.
The rudeness of the "cuz I can" attitude to carrying guns costs tens of thousands of Americans their lives every year.
I would say it is the rudeness of the "cuz I can" attitude to murder somebody that leads to people being murdered, but that's just me.
And of course you, and others like you, would seem to frequently forget that people can believe the 2nd Amendment is a legitimate protection of a natural right AND STILL support gun control.
Once again...
I'd let people keep the kind of handguns that were available in 1791 and nothing more. That's only gun control that makes sense if you insist on sticking to the letter of documents from over two centuries ago.
Should we only allow people to use the language that was spoken in America in 1791 or only adhere to religions that existed in America in 1791?
Why do people get upset when I point out the absurdity of their statements? I didn't reduce the discussion to absurdity, you did.
Should we also apply the 1791 value of money to the protection against "excessive bail and fines" or "cruel and unusual punishment" to the 8th amendment?
Does that answer my question?
Don't think anyone would miss Mormonism or Scientology to be honest.
I really wouldn't see why not.
Quite irrelevant isn't it?
I'm sorry for applying your logic to the rest of the Bill.
Well, I have to ask Rado... why make a comment like the one you made if you don't want it turned back around on you?
Religion should be irrelevant by this point, Rado's point sadly is all too relevant.
Because it doesn't tell me why having a gun is a natural right?
Because the framers couldn't possibly have envisaged the kind of firearms that are available today and would never have intended for the state of things we see now.
1) Couldn't agree more. I'm not religious. But, people have the right to be.
Yet you would choose to ignore the wisdom of all those great thinkers who believe that unfettered ownership of guns in modern society is a fecking mental idea.
