In other words: No one has a right to property beyond what the people or The State allows. And: if a man has no right to property, it follows he has no right to life or liberty.Just because good citizens have not killed anyone is no reason not to make guns illegal to own.
Gun Control
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Gun Control
-
- Posts: 5182
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Gun Control
There is nothing insane about making firecrackers illegal, as has been done in many jurisdictions in the past.
-
- Posts: 5182
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Gun Control
Again, is there any reason not to agree with your premise???henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:44 pmIn other words: No one has a right to property beyond what the people or The State allows. And: if a man has no right to property, it follows he has no right to life or liberty.Just because good citizens have not killed anyone is no reason not to make guns illegal to own.
Further, it doesn’t follow that the right to life is dependent on the right to property.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Gun Control
Oh, of course, legislators can legislate all manner of things into and out of legality.commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:45 pm There is nothing insane about making firecrackers illegal, as has been done in many jurisdictions in the past.
That's not in dispute.
A city council can ban fireworks, sure.
The question: is it right to do so?
Joe did no wrong with his fireworks but, becuz someone did do wrong with theirs, Joe is prohibited from settin' off roman candles on his property.
You truly see no problem there?
-
- Posts: 5182
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Gun Control
It’s no problem for me and for all the folks who approve of a ban.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:57 pmOh, of course, legislators can legislate all manner of things into and out of legality.commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:45 pm There is nothing insane about making firecrackers illegal, as has been done in many jurisdictions in the past.
That's not in dispute.
A city council can ban fireworks, sure.
The question: is it right to do so?
Joe did no wrong with his fireworks but, becuz someone did do wrong with theirs, Joe is prohibited from settin' off roman candles on his property.
You truly see no problem there?
Would you seriously feel like your right to life could be infringed by a manufacturer’s recall of toaster ovens? No matter how you answer, it would appear that your argument is not about property. As such everything you’ve said about property, rather than only about guns, is irrelevant.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Gun Control
Common,
I think we're gettin' lost here. Some of your responses don't, in context, make sense to me. I'm gonna assume the fault is poor communication on my part and try again by loopin' back to the beginning...
-----
From up-thread (amended)...
Your right to your life, liberty, and property is absolute, inalienable, natural, and inherent. Your right to defend your life, liberty, and property is absolute, inalienable, natural, and inherent. These natural rights of yours are not granted and can't be taken away. They can only be recognized or ignored.
It does not seem sensible or moral to me, then, becuz someone else misuses his life, liberty, and property to hurt or kill himself or unjustly hurt or kill others, that you, when you've done no wrong with yours, ought to have your life directed, your liberty curtailed, or your property taken away.
Are you with me so far?
Is anything unclear?
Do you disagree with anything?
I think we're gettin' lost here. Some of your responses don't, in context, make sense to me. I'm gonna assume the fault is poor communication on my part and try again by loopin' back to the beginning...
-----
From up-thread (amended)...
Your right to your life, liberty, and property is absolute, inalienable, natural, and inherent. Your right to defend your life, liberty, and property is absolute, inalienable, natural, and inherent. These natural rights of yours are not granted and can't be taken away. They can only be recognized or ignored.
It does not seem sensible or moral to me, then, becuz someone else misuses his life, liberty, and property to hurt or kill himself or unjustly hurt or kill others, that you, when you've done no wrong with yours, ought to have your life directed, your liberty curtailed, or your property taken away.
Are you with me so far?
Is anything unclear?
Do you disagree with anything?
-
- Posts: 5182
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Gun Control
Yeshenry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 3:21 pm Common,
I think we're gettin' lost here. Some of your responses don't, in context, make sense to me. I'm gonna assume the fault is poor communication on my part and try again by loopin' back to the beginning...
-----
From up-thread (amended)...
Your right to your life, liberty, and property is absolute, inalienable, natural, and inherent. Your right to defend your life, liberty, and property is absolute, inalienable, natural, and inherent. These natural rights of yours are not granted and can't be taken away. They can only be recognized or ignored.
It does not seem sensible or moral to me, then, becuz someone else misuses his life, liberty, and property to hurt or kill himself or unjustly hurt or kill others, that you, when you've done no wrong with yours, ought to have your life directed, your liberty curtailed, or your property taken away.
Are you with me so far?
Is anything unclear?
Do you disagree with anything?
No
Yes
First of all let me say that your entry above captures the heart of what I’ve been hearing from you all along and in other threads as well. Kudos for that. And it was a really good idea to do that at this point, making sure we’re having a discussion of ideas rather than a bungled communication.
So for my first yes and my no, you have been clear all along with what your first paragraph says about rights to life, liberty and property, and also with what you say in your second paragraph about the unfairness of being penalized because someone else misbehaved.
For my other yes, I think we disagree all around. And I don’t think either one of us will make a convert of the other based on what we’ve said so far. But I respect that and sense that you also offer your posts respectively and sincerely.
There are many, I believe, who would agree with you about the rights to life and liberty and even about the right to own property. But I personally disagree. Those rights are lofty ideals, but they aren’t guaranteed by the Constitution. Those inalienable rights appear in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. So they are declared to be inalienable values but are not protected by law. However, I am willing to concede this point as I believe the majority of Americans do not see it the way I do.
As for the idea you have that it’s wrong to take away your property or restrict your use of it, I go with the majority rules aspect of things. It pretty much comes down to whether you think the individual has primacy over the community and its government, or you think that being a contented sheep is a fair price to pay in order to live an altruistic life.
I see what you’re saying and I disagree. I believe the same is true with you. I think we should call this a draw unless you have something to say different from what you’ve concisely described above.
As always, it’s a pleasure to have a conversation with you.
-
- Posts: 5182
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Gun Control
Sorry for the delay with my last post. I was watching 60 Minutes and eating lunch while writing it.
Re: Gun Control
No that does not follow at all.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:44 pmIn other words: No one has a right to property beyond what the people or The State allows. And: if a man has no right to property, it follows he has no right to life or liberty.Just because good citizens have not killed anyone is no reason not to make guns illegal to own.
Life, Liberty and Property are all different. I can see where you might have a right to either two, or either one, but not the others.
You already allow restrictions on the right to own certain properties, yet still believe you have liberty.
You are not at liberty to own LSD for example, nor can you own another person.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Gun Control
No, I have nuthin' to add. Agreein' to disagree (a draw) works for me.I see what you’re saying and I disagree. I believe the same is true with you. I think we should call this a draw unless you have something to say different from what you’ve concisely described above.
*
Same here...As always, it’s a pleasure to have a conversation with you.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Gun Control
I believe all three are part & parcel. It does not seem to me I have a right to one without a right to the other two.Life, Liberty and Property are all different.
Legislators say I can't: I say otherwise.You are not at liberty to own LSD
Of course not, he belongs to himself.nor can you own another person.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10012
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Gun Control
That's right Henry. When the machine in question serves no great purpose to humanity overall then there should be no access to such a machine. Guns are for killing and hurting - therefore - get rid of them.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:31 pmOh, that's how it is: okay, let's play...attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:20 pmSo, it's worth risking more children to be massacred just so that some law abiding members of society can have fun with their guns?henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:12 pm
So: the possibility kids might get off'd tomorrow is a good reason to deprive folks, who've killed no kids with theirs, of their property today?
If so, then it ain't just guns you gotta take. Cars and fists are the primary weapons used to off kids, with guns comin' in 3rd.
And: with guns, most kids are off'd accidentally, not cuz a nutjob targeted anyone (and, FYI, 60% of all gun deaths are suicides...mebbe we oughta consider takin' away everything a person can use to off himself or another).
So: let's take away cars and hands and guns (and toss the presumption of innocence right out on its antiquated keister).
And let's take away cities too, cuz most of America's gun violence happens in metropolises (we can start by levelin' Chicago).
As for fun: since I'm not keen on bein' totally dependent on stores, I hunt with my shotgun. Great fun trompin' thru the woods at daybreak to bag meat. And: I've self-defended with my shotgun. That was great fun too.
Becuz some misuse their property, or misuse a machine, to hurt or kill themselves or unjustly hurt or kill others, everyone ought be penalized in their ownership and use of similar properties or machines?
Personally, I think ALL guns should be locked away at a shooting range and only be used there. If one wishes a rifle for hunting, then that gun can be checked out for a period of time - non automatics though.
I also think the age for accessing guns should be raised to 25.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Gun Control
So guns, becuz of what they do, are in a separate, special, category of property, one damned few, if any, ought have access to except under strict supervision.attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:19 pmThat's right Henry. When the machine in question serves no great purpose to humanity overall then there should be no access to such a machine. Guns are for killing and hurting - therefore - get rid of them.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:31 pmOh, that's how it is: okay, let's play...attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:20 pm
So, it's worth risking more children to be massacred just so that some law abiding members of society can have fun with their guns?
Becuz some misuse their property, or misuse a machine, to hurt or kill themselves or unjustly hurt or kill others, everyone ought be penalized in their ownership and use of similar properties or machines?
Personally, I think ALL guns should be locked away at a shooting range and only be used there. If one wishes a rifle for hunting, then that gun can be checked out for a period of time - non automatics though.
I also think the age for accessing guns should be raised to 25.
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7444
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: Gun Control
This is so pathetic, I'm not even motivated anymore to make a fool out of him. After all, how could I possibly do a better job than he does himself?henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:22 amYes, you talk and talk; I get in and get out.I still respond to your points with whole paragraphs at times. While from you we are lucky to get just a few words.
*
No, biggy. You'll have to go him; he ain't comin' here. And: ask him; don't command.Okay, FlashDangerpants, note for us all of the "big stuff" issues that henry conceded that he was wrong about.
*
Yes, watch the show. Ask yourself: becuz these hillbillies, rednecks, crackers, niggas, defectives, and pinheads do wrong with their property, I should give up, or have taken from me, mine?Watch a few episodes of Fear Thy Neighbor. Note how both neighbors will often insist that only their own understanding of who did nothing and who did something is the true story.
*
Keep in mind: I'm the one who's out and about in the world everyday while biggy, as an obese agoraphobic, is house bound.Henry lives with his guns in this crystal clear thought up world that has almost nothing to do with the complex, convoluted nitty gritty reality of actual human confrontations.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.