Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

[hossenpepper]

Just to drown out the nonsense again, let me reiterate, nothing but your natural death is a right, in that it can be expected to happen. The rest are privileges born of the particular society in which you reside. For instance, we have the privilege to openly criticize the government and others that out themselves in the public eye. However, the Chinese by and large do not enjoy this privilege. Is it the correct and fair thing that they should be able to? That is for each society to decide. And therein lies the difficulty and destruction of the theory that you have a "right" to anything as it is being attempted to be explained by certain persons here.

Here's why: if you allow an open debate about whether or not certain privileges due to innate characteristics of humans (for example of the First Amendment, we like to run our mouths, or the 2nd Amendment, we like to listen to stuff go BOOM, kill large animals and sometimes each other), or is extensible via technological advance (better, more lethal guns, a worldwide communication medium, better health care appliances, automobiles, transporters {someday maybe}), are extended to said society, then by the very nature of the premise on which your society would be structured to even allow this debate among (and including the opinions of) its populace, then you have decided that it will be an EVER EVOLVING SOCIETY. In short, things change, sh!t happens and dangers arise that weren't there before. So as these circumstances unveil, then the laws and legal securities of said privileges must change to reflect the current state of that subject.

If this long winded explanation sounds familiar it is because this is the country we live in. What some people, usually conservatives, don't get about this most fundamental fact of our society, I will never understand. It was built to evolve, not remain exactly as it was day one. Save the "Constitution is purposely limited to keep things the same and limited" argument. Read the Federalists Papers. yes they mention limiting Federal power, but they also clearly declare us to be Federalists, relying on a balanced "layer cake" to govern what they knew would be a diverse society. The true purpose, and proven time and again to be such in writing after writing by these founders, of the limited Constitution was so that it could be evolved and added to as needed and as time evolved us both socially and technologically. This is clearly evidenced further by the fact that we even have an Amendment process in the first place!!! Hell, they left the first 10 out that we see as so basically fundamental to our society, right off the damn bat!! And what's more? We have a special court that is basically just to interpret the subtleties of application of these laws and definitions as the society evolves! If you see this as some attempt to address a "necessary evil" by the founders, then you truly do not understand their writings or intent. This is PoliSci 101 stuff folks!!

As the guns and appliances thereof change, freedoms/privileges will be extended and some retracted. If you don't get that the flexibility purposely designed into our system supersedes conservative style status quo bantering, supposedly disguised as "opinion" not from the genre of such, then you simply do not understand the most primary purpose of our societal structure.

In short, it ain't 1787 anymore sweethearts (<-- that last word is because it's Valentine's Day, gosh I am oh-so-clever), and we don't live that lifestyle now. Time to evolve or get out of the way so the adults can figure this out.

[Sepia and Dust]

Just to drown out the nonsense again, let me reiterate, nothing but your natural death is a right, in that it can be expected to happen. The rest are privileges born of the particular society in which you reside. For instance, we have the privilege to openly criticize the government and others that out themselves in the public eye. However, the Chinese by and large do not enjoy this privilege. Is it the correct and fair thing that they should be able to? That is for each society to decide. And therein lies the difficulty and destruction of the theory that you have a "right" to anything as it is being attempted to be explained by certain persons here.

Oh, codswallop. There are many rights outside of the mere right to die, as you are perfectly well aware.

If one accepts the concept of goodness, then one also must accept a definition for that concept, and it is simply this: Those who respect the natural rights of mankind are good; those who don't, aren't.

[Todash]

Oh, codswallop. There are many rights outside of the mere right to die, as you are perfectly well aware.

If one accepts the concept of goodness, then one also must accept a definition for that concept, and it is simply this: Those who respect the natural rights of mankind are good; those who don't, aren't.

You get eleventy bonus points for using the word codswallop.

[jay1799]

Just to drown out...

So is that your goal? Not to debate, but to drown out opposing positions?

It seems that you are losing the debate, and thus need to try to change the subject. That is very poor debating form.

...nothing but your natural death is a right, in that it can be expected to happen. The rest are privileges born of the particular society in which you reside. For instance ... However, the Chinese by and large do not enjoy this privilege ....

The chinese do not have rights because they live under an oppressive regime. Their rights are violated. That does not mean humans do not have certain rights. It just means that governments will suppress peoples rights when they have all the power and the people have none. That is exactly what the 2nd Amendment is trying to prevent. But hey, if you want to live in a country where the people have no rights, feel free to move to China. Dont let the door hit you on the way out....

...then you have decided that it will be an EVER EVOLVING SOCIETY.

Sure society evolves. No one is denying that.

What some people, usually conservatives, don't get about this most fundamental fact of our society, I will never understand.

What is your personal obsession with conservatives?

It was built to evolve, not remain exactly as it was day one. ... The true purpose, and proven time and again to be such in writing after writing by these founders, of the limited Constitution was so that it could be evolved and added to as needed and as time evolved us both socially and technologically. This is clearly evidenced further by the fact that we even have an Amendment process in the first place!!!

Yes. The Constitution was meant to be able to change via an Amendment process. If that is what you wish to do, then Amend The Constitution. Your problem is that an Amendment to remove 2A would NEVER pass...so gun-grabbers are trying to legislate it away in drips and drabs...but that does not change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is a right protected under The Constitution.

Additionally, your views that people do not have rights enshrined in The Constitution would be one that I doubt is shared by many other Americans.

Hell, they left the first 10 out that we see as so basically fundamental to our society, right off the damn bat!!

This is factually incorrect.

Have you ever heard of the Massachusetts Compromise? Basically, The Constitution would never have been ratified without the express agreement by federalists for a Bill of Rights. Understand those words?? There would not have been The Constitution without The Bill of Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Compromise

Federalist Noah Webster argued that an armed populace would have no trouble resisting the potential threat to liberty of a standing army.^[67][68] Anti-federalists, however, advocated amending the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights providing more explicit constraints on the new government. Many Anti-federalists feared the new federal government would choose to disarm state militias. Federalists countered that in listing only certain rights, unlisted rights might lose protection. The Federalists realized there was insufficient support to ratify the Constitution without a bill of rights and so they promised to support amending the Constitution to add a bill of rights following the Constitution's adoption. This compromise persuaded enough Anti-federalists to vote for the Constitution, allowing for ratification.^[69] The Constitution was declared ratified June 21, 1788, when nine of the original thirteen states had ratified it. The remaining four states later followed suit, although the last two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, ratified only after Congress had passed the Bill of Rights and sent it to the states for ratification.^[70] James Madison drafted what ultimately became the Bill of Rights, which was proposed by the first Congress on June 8, 1789, and was adopted on December 15, 1791.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

And what's more? We have a special court that is basically just to interpret the subtleties of application of these laws and definitions as the society evolves!

Yes. And that court has ruled that The People have an Individual Right to keep and bear arms, and that Right is also incorporated to The States via the 14th Amendment. Get with the program.

[hossenpepper]

Oh, codswallop. There are many rights outside of the mere right to die, as you are perfectly well aware.

If one accepts the concept of goodness, then one also must accept a definition for that concept, and it is simply this: Those who respect the natural rights of mankind are good; those who don't, aren't.

Differentiating a privilege and a "right" is not a difference without distinction. Otherwise you would have to expect these rights no matter where you are. You know perfectly well that test doesn't even hold as you move from town to town in the US. Much less state to state. Can you legally possess marijuana in Kansas? NO!!! How about next door in Colorado? YES!! Because the society specific to CO has decided a different set of privileges than that of KS. So the "right" to possess can change by simply walking across an imaginary line. Only by enforcing or arguing some form of imaginary divination of these "rights", (which, golly, people want so they can do things that maybe not everyone agrees they should) can you see this as some inherent fabric of the universe, just waiting for man to unveil it. Otherwise these are debated agreements of extended privilege to your fellow humans and yourself. That does not make them inherent to existence!!! Calling these privileges "rights" has everything to do with making it seem as though there is no arguing such matters and nothing to do with ingrained human values as you use as your example.

Your codswallop assessment relies on "rights" being interwoven into existence so much so that they just "are" and never needed to be developed,debated or otherwise over many centuries of human civilization. You can assess for yourself which of those two things has actually happened here on Earth.

[Sepia and Dust]

Differentiating a privilege and a "right" is not a difference without distinction.

Within the framework of civilization, there are natural rights possessed by every human, regardless of geography. That these rights are infringed upon by some governments does not remove the rights from the individual, but rather shows the governments in question to be often despotic and occassionally invalid.

Your arguments that humans have no rights, whatsoever, except for the right to die are disingenuous because they not only move the goalposts, they move the whole arena. Any discussion of rights, natural or otherwise, begins with a framework of civilization.

A government is not "interwoven into existence", but is constructed by people. A valid government does not "grant privileges" to any, but ensures that natural rights are afforded to all.

I will grant, however, that there is no natural right to carry around a baggie of weed. Score one for you.

[hossenpepper]

Within the framework of civilization, there are natural rights possessed by every human, regardless of geography. That these rights are infringed upon by some governments does not remove the rights from the individual, but rather shows the governments in question to be often despotic and occassionally invalid.

Your arguments that humans have no rights, whatsoever, except for the right to die are disingenuous because they not only move the goalposts, they move the whole arena. Any discussion of rights, natural or otherwise, begins with a framework of civilization.

A government is not "interwoven into existence", but is constructed by people. A valid government does not "grant privileges" to any, but ensures that natural rights are afforded to all.

I will grant, however, that there is no natural right to carry around a baggie of weed. Score one for you.

I didn't call dying a right. It is an inevitably. That is how the term "rights" as it applies to the discussion here and of other human legalities, is being equated. I think this very fundamental glossing over of the basic premise of what is and is not inherent to man or their existence thereof, is where things start to go off the rails in the first place. The term "right" is seen as an entitled state of existence or allowance. When it is defined as such, then it takes on an almost, and in many cases overtly, religious tone and aspect. This then leads to seeing these as "god given", "natural" or other term that interweaves them in a way as to inseparable from each individual. Obviously, for the refined and socially evolved type of civilization in which we find ourselves now, these privileges must exist, and equally so for all in said society. However, that still does not preclude the fact that these rights, privileges, entitlements or whatever specific term you use are not wholesale guaranteed, required or otherwise inherent unless the group of involved persons decide they are to be so.

I guess what I am trying to get at here is not I am not arguing that we don't need/want privilege A, B, or C in order for our society to be more comfortable, enjoyable, fulfilling or otherwise tapered for the advancement and survival of our species. I am saying that since many, on either side of this debate, would agree that the main root of this problem is the attitude and complications within our society, often created by our rampant selfishness, greed and other overly individualistic tendencies, then we must agree that some fundamental values of this society must be examined.

I feel the almost "faith based" way we expect that we can do this, that, those and more, with very few limits, is at the core of the aforementioned societal woes. Perhaps if Americans didn't feel so entitled, perhaps we might respect each more. But if one is so absorbed by "me me me" and "my right my right my right", that is very hard to impossible. Now add someone who is slightly off mentally to that soil... you may grow a killer.

At the very least, not being to even relax the death grip on "rights" pretty much says that the debate was settled 200+ years ago, so why should we have it anymore? If you see the accouterments of a civilized society, whose government both is defined by and defines it, as privileges derived thereof, then you see that debate is crucial to its continual and necessary maintenance. You see that the government is the tool by which we adjust these matters and privileges to further evolve and refine the society. This flexible structure is why the US has been so successful in melting all of the different ideals, ethnicities, religions and values into the fabric we have now. But, without recognizing the fragility of this mesh, plus the fact that if it should break, so do these "rights" vanish, we create the very situation that may cause it to fracture in the first place.

Summary: On a very basic level the reason a U.S. citizen has (for example) U.S. gun "rights" is because the U.S. exists and certain privileges come with that citizenship. Not because it is written in the stars and our DNA.

For reference purposes, this is a proper debate. Thanks S&D

[Sepia and Dust]

I didn't call dying a right. It is an inevitably. That is how the term "rights" as it applies to the discussion here and of other human legalities, is being equated. I think this very fundamental glossing over of the basic premise of what is and is not inherent to man or their existence thereof, is where things start to go off the rails in the first place. The term "right" is seen as an entitled state of existence or allowance. When it is defined as such, then it takes on an almost, and in many cases overtly, religious tone and aspect. This then leads to seeing these as "god given", "natural" or other term that interweaves them in a way as to inseparable from each individual. Obviously, for the refined and socially evolved type of civilization in which we find ourselves now, these privileges must exist, and equally so for all in said society. However, that still does not preclude the fact that these rights, privileges, entitlements or whatever specific term you use are not wholesale guaranteed, required or otherwise inherent unless the group of involved persons decide they are to be so.

I guess what I am trying to get at here is not I am not arguing that we don't need/want privilege A, B, or C in order for our society to be more comfortable, enjoyable, fulfilling or otherwise tapered for the advancement and survival of our species. I am saying that since many, on either side of this debate, would agree that the main root of this problem is the attitude and complications within our society, often created by our rampant selfishness, greed and other overly individualistic tendencies, then we must agree that some fundamental values of this society must be examined.

I feel the almost "faith based" way we expect that we can do this, that, those and more, with very few limits, is at the core of the aforementioned societal woes. Perhaps if Americans didn't feel so entitled, perhaps we might respect each more. But if one is so absorbed by "me me me" and "my right my right my right", that is very hard to impossible. Now add someone who is slightly off mentally to that soil... you may grow a killer.

At the very least, not being to even relax the death grip on "rights" pretty much says that the debate was settled 200+ years ago, so why should we have it anymore? If you see the accouterments of a civilized society, whose government both is defined by and defines it, as privileges derived thereof, then you see that debate is crucial to its continual and necessary maintenance. You see that the government is the tool by which we adjust these matters and privileges to further evolve and refine the society. This flexible structure is why the US has been so successful in melting all of the different ideals, ethnicities, religions and values into the fabric we have now. But, without recognizing the fragility of this mesh, plus the fact that if it should break, so do these "rights" vanish, we create the very situation that may cause it to fracture in the first place.

Summary: On a very basic level the reason a U.S. citizen has (for example) U.S. gun "rights" is because the U.S. exists and certain privileges come with that citizenship. Not because it is written in the stars and our DNA.

For reference purposes, this is a proper debate. Thanks S&D

Well, I can't take any issue with anything you said. I will further agree that the right to bear arms is not (IMO, anyway) a natural right, though the rights to self-defense and to hunt for food are.

I hope that--despite our current problems--our most current fragile mesh will hold for a good while longer. We've come a long way since the days of the divine right of kings.

[hossenpepper]

Dont let the door hit you on the way out....

My ancestors, among others, are Native American. Unless yours are as well, I would say that supersedes your invitation to please exit, practicing protection of your posterior, any day of the week, golf club whisperer.

(<--- That makes my reply not snarky. Sans smiley, it might seem so.)

[Lily Sawyer]

That these rights are infringed upon by some governments does not remove the rights from the individual, but rather shows the governments in question to be often despotic and occassionally invalid.

Question for you, guido, exzel, and Sundrop: Do you consider regulations to be infringements on rights? (example: First Amendment rights guarantee you the right to speechify with hate rhetoric. Regulations say you can be punished for turning that hate into libel or slander, or worse.)