American Politics XXII

[Peter Irving]

I don't think everyone should have the right to own anything. Like a mentally unstable person should not be able to buy a gun.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The second amendment grants nothing, it recognizes a right to bear arms.

Within a specfic context, namely a well-regulated militia.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I don't think everyone should have the right to own anything. Like a mentally unstable person should not be able to buy a gun.

Fortunately, rights are not dependent on what people think they are. They exist, and people have them. Unfortunately, rights are easily denied by use of violence.

[Peter Irving]

So a insane person should be able to buy a gun?

What about a repeat offender? Should they be able to leggally own a gun?

[Darzin]

Fortunately, rights are not dependent on what people think they are. They exist, and people have them. Unfortunately, rights are easily denied by use of violence.

Or we voluntarily give up some of our natural rights, so that we can live in a civilization. Beats the state of nature everytime I want my life to be pleasent, civilized and long.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Fortunately, rights are not dependent on what people think they are.

Nonsense. Rights are a social construct, and are thus entirely dependent on what people think they are.

[Peter Irving]

no everyone for themselves! Lets be like iceland supposedly was in the 1200s its totally doable!

[MinDonner]

Nonsense. Rights are a social construct, and are thus entirely dependent on what people think they are.

Yes, this, exactly. Rights are not like radiation or gravity that exist whether you believe in them or not.

[Piper]

Hmm, maybe getting too philosophical for a thread on US politics and worthy of its own spin-offs, but

The right to keep and bear arms is the same right to own anything. To deny this right is the same as denying the right to keep and read books. It is an intolerable rejection of the right to property.

Is the right to property the most important concern? Does nothing trump it?

Min,

Yes, this, exactly. Rights are not like radiation or gravity that exist whether you believe in them or not.

See, here I think you have to remember American founding ideology:

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—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

You have rights, that you then form a social contract to protect. You do not derive your rights from that social contract.

Or that's how many Americans will see it, I think.

[dalThor]

Palin's unedited tweets:

• Copnhagn Climate Summit;Obama should boycott in light of bogus "findings"Public leary re:snake oil science,he must take stand on climategate

• 2 much of "global warming" agenda is merely to halt responsible developmnt;sound science must b foundation 4 Copnhagn decisions,not politics

Detroit Free Press

Well. Thank you Sarah. Now that you've chimed in I don't need to worry about global warming anymore. :rolleyes:

[Peter Irving]

I've always seen the DOI as nothing more than a piece of paper for the continental congress to give reasons for their decision to split the colonies leave Britain, not a legal document (If it had been the blacks would have received their freedom a lot sooner).

[Piper]

I've always seen the DOI as nothing more than a piece of paper for the continental congress to give reasons for their decision to split the colonies leave Britain, not a legal document (If it had been the blacks would have received their freedom a lot sooner).

Sure, but the point is we're discussion whether or not a document can give rights, or whether they can simply create a mechanism for protecting pre-existing rights. The point is the mentality the Declaration represents, not its legal status.

[The Iceman of the North]

I've always seen the DOI as nothing more than a piece of paper for the continental congress to give reasons for their decision to split the colonies leave Britain, not a legal document (If it had been the blacks would have received their freedom a lot sooner).

Now you just get into semantics by claiming that black people should be counted among "all men".

[Peter Irving]

Well part of my reasoning for being against using the DOI as a legal document is because the racist Neo Confederates at the Ludwig von misses institute in the past have used it as a reason to claim the CSA had a right to exist.

[MinDonner]

You have rights, that you then form a social contract to protect. You do not derive your rights from that social contract.

Or that's how many Americans will see it, I think.

Bah. Sounds like Mysticism to me. I don't think that's the sort of wooly thinking we should be encouraging in these parts. :whip:

[TerraPrime]

Detroit Free Press

Well. Thank you Sarah. Now that you've chimed in I don't need to worry about global warming anymore. :rolleyes:

Sarah Palin, of how research in Drosophila has no implication on real life issues like neurodegenerative diseases, knows as much about what constitutes science as Keith Richards does about effective ways to say no to drugs.

[Shryke]

Reid grew some balls. OK, well, maybe only 1 ball, but still:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/07/reid-compares-health-care-reform-foes-slavery-supporters/

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.

The Nevada Democrat, in a sweeping set of accusations on the Senate floor, also compared health care foes to those who opposed women's suffrage and the civil rights movement

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said Monday. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"

He continued: "When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right.

"When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

Reid's office stood by the remarks, with spokesman Jim Manley saying Republicans have "done nothing but obstruct health care" in the Senate.

"Today's feigned outrage is nothing but a ploy to distract from the fact they have no plan to lower the cost of health care, stop insurance company abuses or protect Medicare," Manley said.

But Republicans said they were genuinely appalled. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Reid's remarks were over the top.

"That is extremely offensive," he told Fox News. "It's language that should never be used, never be used. ... Those days are not here now."

Sorry about the Fox News link, although it's hilarious watching them try to associate themselves with progressive rights and just ignore that whole Southern Strategy, ok?

Also, this kind of language is "extremely offensive" but saying that someone intends to create Nazi-esque panels to kill the elderly is not?

God, Republicans are the biggest pussies out there.

[Shryke]

Someone on the Right finally questions the intelligence of the "No Abortion Coverage on Insurance" amendment. And on Fox News no less!!

....

Oh wait, sorry, she questions it because it will lead to "too many low-income babies".

[Piper]

Bah. Sounds like Mysticism to me. I don't think that's the sort of wooly thinking we should be encouraging in these parts. :whip:

I agree we can take the "endowed by their Creator" part and chuck it; however, if we see a non-divine ethical theory that would logically lead us to certain principles, would it then make sense to say those principles exist outside of a social contract?

I mean, we criticize nations (pretty much every nation) for things we think are immoral: denying group X the right to vote, for example, or for having either too harsh or too lax gun control laws, depending on your view on things. When we make such criticisms, aren't we saying that the social contract is not doing an adequate job protecting the rights its citizens should have, and therefore implying such rights exist outside of a social contract?

[MinDonner]

I agree we can take the "endowed by their Creator" part and chuck it; however, if we see a non-divine ethical theory that would logically lead us to certain principles, would it then make sense to say those principles exist outside of a social contract?

I mean, we criticize nations (pretty much every nation) for things we think are immoral: denying group X the right to vote, for example, or for having either too harsh or too lax gun control laws, depending on your view on things. When we make such criticisms, aren't we saying that the social contract is not doing an adequate job protecting the rights its citizens should have, and therefore implying such rights exist outside of a social contract?

This is getting way off topic now (sorry, US politics fans!) but I really can't see any way to define rights as an objective constant, separate from the society that they exist in, in the same way that I don't believe in a white line down the middle of the universe separating Good from Evil. There are principles of *fairness* that can be viewed more objectively (so, if Person A has the right to vote, then you shouldn't deny that to Person B - easy enough to quantify) - BUT I couldn't honestly argue that one person's definition of "rights" was more absolutely correct than another's. What, after all, is a "right"? Where does it come from? If a right is breached in a forest and nobody sees it, did it still happen? Rights, IMO, are a set of competing conventions agreed upon by society for whatever purposes it deems necessary; they are no less real for that, but I can't agree that they are in any way objective.