England UK

"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:myukh.4255$w91.1159@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> "Melanie Ford" <spoofedatnospam@RockieFord.nte> wrote in message
>> news:Xns98A589F6B6331spoofedatnospamRocki@216.196.97.142...
>> [ SNIP ]
>>> I reiterate, they don't need to replace NRA, as NRA is a gun control
>>> group. Groups like GOA and JPFO are actually fighting for our human
>>> rights, not against them like NRA is. So touting how effective NRA is,
>>> is like bragging about how effective the Brady Campaign is. Get it?
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, and I'm trying not to be combative here, exactly
>> why are you so concerned about unrestricted RKBA? I mean, "human rights"
>> is a pretty powerful term - most people think of the right to liberty and
>> free speech, and the right to due process, and the right to earn a
>> living. They don't usually think of owning automatic weapons as being a
>> "human right".
>>
>> I'm sure you do believe that it is, and I'm not arguing against what you
>> believe. I'm just curious as to why you believe that. I mean, wherever
>> you live (somewhere in the States I assume), do you actually have a
>> practical difficulty obtaining a rifle, or a shotgun, or a handgun?
>> Assuming not, what practical situation is there where you think you need
>> something other than the firearms you can already get?
>>
>> Again, I'm not being combative - I'm genuinely curious.
>>
>> I used the word "need" on purpose. Because if you're going to use the
>> term "human rights", please don't tell me that owning automatic weapons
>> or mortars or RPGs is a "human right" just for recreational use. It has
>> to be something more fundamental, because human rights are fundamental.
>> And you can't really say that you need heavy weapons for personal
>> self-defense, like walking down the street - if you get into a situation
>> where your handgun won't get you out of it, you're toast anyway. So
>> what's the reason? What makes it a "human right"?
>>
>> As I informed someone else, rights - basic rights, human rights,
>> inalienable rights - are in fact all based on need. There are no rights
>> that are not based on need. So you must feel that there is some need that
>> justifies unfettered RKBA. What is it?
>
> You informed me, Arved, but I did not, and still do not, agree with you.
>
> You keep confusing a "want" with an unalienable right. So tell us all
> what your definition of an unalienable right is? IIRC, you define it as
> something that can be limited by government fiat; i.e., it's not an
> unalienable right but a privilege. Is this correct?

What do you consider to be the basic difference between a right and a
privilege?


>
> Do we have an unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
> Happiness, Arved? Will you put limits on my "privilege" to Life? Or is
> my life an unalienable right which I can expect, having been born in the
> US?

There are no unalienable rights in the strict sense of that term. No such
thing is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. We do regularly deprive
criminals of their liberty and pursuit of happiness, and sometimes of their
lives. All this is proper and as it should be, and thoroughly constitutional
besides.


>
> IOW, is it OK for a family to sell off their children so their organs can
> be harvested for medical implants? Or do those children have an
> unalienable right to life?

No and no, and of doubtful relevance anyway.


>
> Mind you, I am not going to get into the "criminals lose their rights
> debate". That's a completely separate issue.

Why "a completely separate issue"? If a right were truly unalienable, by
definition it could never be taken away. As soon as you start setting
*conditions* (isn't that the very thing you far-out "libertarians" insist
must never be done?) there goes the whole "unalienable" idea.

Neil