(04-16-2010 10:01 AM)GilWinant Wrote:  Once again, you fail to grasp the point. This seems to be a recurring theme. Simple point - assume there is no "Creator", does the right still exist and should it? I realize this sort of discussion is far beyond your sixth-grade education, but give it a shot.

...and once again, you display your disgust with the founding fathers and documents. Take it up with them. If you don't like it, move to another f'n country. I've explained why "God-Given Rights" was used but, it would appear, you're not intellectually capable of grasping why they were considered "God-Given".

I prefer "natural rights" to "god-given rights".

(04-16-2010 12:35 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 10:23 AM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 10:07 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 10:01 AM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 05:51 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 04:47 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  You have still failed to provide an answer. If you say the right is God-given, and it turned out that God doesn't exist, is the right still valid? If your answer is yes, then the right is not God-given. I apologize for assuming you had a shred of deductive reasoning and could understand the point without it being laid out in minute detail for you. In fact, I probably shouldn't assume you understand even after having it laid out for you because you have shown yourself to be among the least, if not the least, intelligent member of this board. Never have I seen you give an insightful response, nor pose a thought-provoking question. You are the intellectual equivalent of a dry well.

So, you're essentially saying our founders were braindead morons? Actually, if you don't understand why the founders put it in those words, it is you who is SEVERELY limited in brain capacity. It didn't matter if it was the Christian God, Allah, Buddha, or f'n Gaia. The point was it made those rights something that government could NEVER take away, as they were granted by the creator.

Maybe you should stick to debating 2nd graders. Then again, you could take your sorry *** to whatever country you think would be better and free from the influence of those "stupid" founders who created the greatest country on Earth.

You really are a fuken putz.

Once again, you fail to grasp the point. This seems to be a recurring theme. Simple point - assume there is no "Creator", does the right still exist and should it? I realize this sort of discussion is far beyond your sixth-grade education, but give it a shot.

Yes, the right is God-Given.....it's the right to defend yourself....to fight for your freedom (Yes, you would still have this human right, regardless of "Creator" status...I believe, as did our forefathers, that this right was endowed by our creator...you believe it's human nature....same difference). How did we fight against the British for our Independence? How did ancient people defend themselves and rise up against a tyrannical government? Times and technology change.....the God-given right to defend yourself, and your way of life has not.

Sorry I had to spell it out for them Rebel.....synapses on the left seem to be a bit slow....

I may be left of you - I don't know because I don't know your politics - but I'm not left in general. I've been a member of the Republican party since I've been old enough vote, which has been many years, and I've put a lot of money into the GOP over my lifetime. I just don't like where my party is today, and I hope it will return to it's traditional platform of fiscal responsibility and dump the disgusting social agenda that has been adopted over the last three decades.

As far as the discussion at hand, the origin of the right is very important. If someone genuinely believes it is a divine right, that is very different than believing it is derived from positive law. It is more akin to believing it is a natural right, but still not the same. Even once those distinctions are drawn, there is still the question of what constitutes reasonable self-defense safeguards when in public. But that's another discussion. Of course I was never arguing against the right to bear arms, but instead trying to have a discussion over the origin of that right. Clearly, few here are capable of such a discussion.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the politics standpoint...But as to the rights afforded humans....I believe that the right to bear arms is a basic human right, in that it gives us the ability to defend ourselves, as I said, from criminals and tyrants.

The origin of that right, regardless of any deity, is that it's the right of our species to do what we can to keep ourselves alive, and be able to contribute at the utmost of our abilities to our fellow man.

Our fore-fathers and I see our basic species' right to defend oneself as being handed down by God...to our species. Therefore, if you believe in "God", it's "God-given", if you don't, it's human nature.

So does Achmadinejad retain the right to have nuclear weapons? I know he is a leader of a government rather than a private citizen. But perhaps he could own them as a private citizen? Would he have the right to that? Just curious what result the aforementioned rights lead to and where the line needs to be drawn, if any.

(04-20-2010 04:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 12:35 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 10:23 AM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 10:07 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 10:01 AM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 05:51 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 04:47 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  You have still failed to provide an answer. If you say the right is God-given, and it turned out that God doesn't exist, is the right still valid? If your answer is yes, then the right is not God-given. I apologize for assuming you had a shred of deductive reasoning and could understand the point without it being laid out in minute detail for you. In fact, I probably shouldn't assume you understand even after having it laid out for you because you have shown yourself to be among the least, if not the least, intelligent member of this board. Never have I seen you give an insightful response, nor pose a thought-provoking question. You are the intellectual equivalent of a dry well.

So, you're essentially saying our founders were braindead morons? Actually, if you don't understand why the founders put it in those words, it is you who is SEVERELY limited in brain capacity. It didn't matter if it was the Christian God, Allah, Buddha, or f'n Gaia. The point was it made those rights something that government could NEVER take away, as they were granted by the creator.

Maybe you should stick to debating 2nd graders. Then again, you could take your sorry *** to whatever country you think would be better and free from the influence of those "stupid" founders who created the greatest country on Earth.

You really are a fuken putz.

Once again, you fail to grasp the point. This seems to be a recurring theme. Simple point - assume there is no "Creator", does the right still exist and should it? I realize this sort of discussion is far beyond your sixth-grade education, but give it a shot.

Yes, the right is God-Given.....it's the right to defend yourself....to fight for your freedom (Yes, you would still have this human right, regardless of "Creator" status...I believe, as did our forefathers, that this right was endowed by our creator...you believe it's human nature....same difference). How did we fight against the British for our Independence? How did ancient people defend themselves and rise up against a tyrannical government? Times and technology change.....the God-given right to defend yourself, and your way of life has not.

Sorry I had to spell it out for them Rebel.....synapses on the left seem to be a bit slow....

I may be left of you - I don't know because I don't know your politics - but I'm not left in general. I've been a member of the Republican party since I've been old enough vote, which has been many years, and I've put a lot of money into the GOP over my lifetime. I just don't like where my party is today, and I hope it will return to it's traditional platform of fiscal responsibility and dump the disgusting social agenda that has been adopted over the last three decades.

As far as the discussion at hand, the origin of the right is very important. If someone genuinely believes it is a divine right, that is very different than believing it is derived from positive law. It is more akin to believing it is a natural right, but still not the same. Even once those distinctions are drawn, there is still the question of what constitutes reasonable self-defense safeguards when in public. But that's another discussion. Of course I was never arguing against the right to bear arms, but instead trying to have a discussion over the origin of that right. Clearly, few here are capable of such a discussion.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the politics standpoint...But as to the rights afforded humans....I believe that the right to bear arms is a basic human right, in that it gives us the ability to defend ourselves, as I said, from criminals and tyrants.

The origin of that right, regardless of any deity, is that it's the right of our species to do what we can to keep ourselves alive, and be able to contribute at the utmost of our abilities to our fellow man.

Our fore-fathers and I see our basic species' right to defend oneself as being handed down by God...to our species. Therefore, if you believe in "God", it's "God-given", if you don't, it's human nature.

So does Achmadinejad retain the right to have nuclear weapons? I know he is a leader of a government rather than a private citizen. But perhaps he could own them as a private citizen? Would he have the right to that? Just curious what result the aforementioned rights lead to and where the line needs to be drawn, if any.

Interesting point. I do not believe Achmadinejad is justified in possessing nuclear arms because on numerous occasions he has stated his intent to "push Israel into the sea", etc. Should Iran be allowed to defend itself if attacked for no reason...well, of course.....but doing everything in our power to restrict a government whose intentions are quite questionable should be every peace-loving country's duty. Just my initial thought....

Quote:Both states require applicants to undergo background checks and submit to fingerprinting.

Fail.

(04-20-2010 05:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

Quote:Both states require applicants to undergo background checks and submit to fingerprinting.

Fail.

In most states you don't have to have ANY permit to possess a shotgun in your vehicle. That's why a pistol-grip, short- barrel (legal) shotgun comes in handy.

(04-16-2010 02:25 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  We dont allow felons to purchase firearms: is that infringing on gods will?

Felons lose their rights through due process of law. Thats why its constitutional to strip them of their right to vote, own guns, etc.

(04-20-2010 08:12 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(04-20-2010 05:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

Quote:Both states require applicants to undergo background checks and submit to fingerprinting.

Fail.

In most states you don't have to have ANY permit to possess a shotgun in your vehicle. That's why a pistol-grip, short- barrel (legal) shotgun comes in handy.

In SC you DO NOT need a permit to have a handgun in your vehicle. Concealed carry is NOT the same as vehicle carry.

good thing i bought another .303 huh?

GTS - for your bug-out bag........



http://www.mossberg.com/products/default...n=products

(04-21-2010 08:48 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  GTS - for your bug-out bag........



http://www.mossberg.com/products/default...n=products

That's awesome!