Guns Are Simply Not a Human Right

[!Jones]

talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.liberalism,alt.philosophy,alt.philosophy.debate

Guns Are Simply Not a Human Right

There is a fundamental dichotomy: there is simply no such thing as a
*controlled* human right. For example, if reading is one of these
rights, then any attempt to limit access to books based on someone's
objection to the ideas presented therein is a violation of that basic
right, SCOTUS opinions notwithstanding.

Operational definition: a "right" is an intrinsic, indelible, and
universal property of the human experience that pre-exists any
government and spans political borders. I postulate that these three
properties are the necessary and sufficient criteria by which an idea
may (or may not) be called a "human right". [References: I'm not a
big fan of Wiki; however, I find that a Wiki bibliography usually
provides a valid starting point for research:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights. I also lean heavily upon:
Kohen, Ari (2007). In Defense of Human Rights: A Non-Religious
Grounding in a Pluralistic World. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-42015-0,
978-0-415-42015-0.]

Based on my postulate, guns are simply not a human right because the
idea meets none of my conditions, where all three are required.

I see two avenues of attack on the preceding statement: either the
postulate does not hold, or guns do, in fact, meet the three criteria.
(Please note that my argument does not appeal to any nation's gun
laws, and I am uninterested in discussing them.) If you choose to
attack the postulate, then please produce your own working definition
of a human right.

I look forward to hearing from you.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 10:15:29 -0500, !Jones <x...@y.com> wrote:

>talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.liberalism,alt.philosophy,alt.philosophy.debate
>
>Guns Are Simply Not a Human Right

They simply are.

[dyno dan]

On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 10:15:29 -0500, !Jones <x...@y.com> wrote:

>talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.liberalism,alt.philosophy,alt.philosophy.debate
>
>Guns Are Simply Not a Human Right
>

Not specifically. But the right to self defense definitely is, using
the most effective tool available. And in THIS country, with our
Constitution, that tool is often a personal firearm. Deal with it. Or
just move to Canada if personal freedoms bother you that much.

-dan z-




--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887
(use cut and paste to your browser if necessary)

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

[!Jones]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:07:27 -0400, in talk.politics.guns dyno dan
<lo...@is.important> wrote:

>Not specifically. But the right to self defense definitely is, using
>the most effective tool available. And in THIS country, with our
>Constitution, that tool is often a personal firearm. Deal with it. Or
>just move to Canada if personal freedoms bother you that much.

Guns are either a human right or they aren't. An idea doesn't have to
be *specifically* listed someplace in order to be a right... it must
be, however: intrinsic, indelible, and universal. (Also, you're
conflating two different terms: a "right" is comparable with, but
different from, a "freedom".)

Everything that has life (animal, plant, insect) will defend itself.
I tend argue that this over-used cliche about: "the right to self
defense", is akin to bringing up one's "right to use Earth's
gravitational field". It's a fundamental property of all living
organisms, not something specific to humans.

I am uninterested in discussing the laws of any country. Laws are
written by a person or persons representing a government, but human
rights pre-exist any government. The laws will flip as radically as
the wind... a human right is indelible and universal.

But, since you brought it up, the people in Canada tend to believe
that they have many more personal freedoms than do people living in
the U.S.A. (But I take no position on that because it has nothing to
do with my topic.)

[dyno dan]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 11:36:13 -0500, !Jones <x...@y.com> wrote:

>Guns are either a human right or they aren't.

Please provide some factual support for this ridiculous assertion.

[!Jones]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 09:09:31 -0400, in talk.politics.guns dyno dan
<lo...@is.important> wrote:

>>Guns are either a human right or they aren't.
>
>
>Please provide some factual support for this ridiculous assertion.

I assume you're joking.

In logic, that's called a tautology. In a Boolean landscape, the only
two possible values are true and false; therefore, for any statement
S, "S is true or S is not true," *must* be true. Many environments
allow a ternary Boolean which has values "true", "false", and "NULL"
(where "NULL" means "without value"); however, the above still holds
because "NULL" is other than "true".

But... you knew that, didn't you?

My point is that you either accept my definition of the term "human
right", or you don't. When I call something a "postulate", I'm saying
that it is obviously true (to me, anyway) and that it can neither be
proven nor disproven.

If you don't accept my definition, then please provide *your*
definition.

[Just Wondering]

On 4/25/2023 8:54 AM, !Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 09:09:31 -0400, in talk.politics.guns dyno dan
> <lo...@is.important> wrote:
>
>>> Guns are either a human right or they aren't.
>>
>>
>> Please provide some factual support for this ridiculous assertion.
>
> I assume you're joking.
>
> In logic, that's called a tautology. In a Boolean landscape, the only
> two possible values are true and false; therefore, for any statement
> S, "S is true or S is not true," *must* be true. Many environments
> allow a ternary Boolean which has values "true", "false", and "NULL"
> (where "NULL" means "without value"); however, the above still holds
> because "NULL" is other than "true".
>
> But... you knew that, didn't you?
>
> My point is that you either accept my definition of the term "human
> right", or you don't.

You are the only living human on the entire planet who accepts
your definition of "human right". Therefore, discussion with
you on the subject should be avoided by all rational people.

[!Jones]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:15:27 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:

>> My point is that you either accept my definition of the term "human
>> right", or you don't.
>
>You are the only living human on the entire planet who accepts
>your definition of "human right". Therefore, discussion with
>you on the subject should be avoided by all rational people.

I will type as slowly and as clearly as I can, sir.

I am not asking you to accept my definition... as, obviously, you do
not. I am simply asking you to provide your own definition of the
term "human right".

You sit on the sideline of a discussion as our resident moral critic;
however, you never provide an original idea. You'll never close with
me because you know that you won't last long.

Try me. Post your definition of a human right... let's see it.

-- ------------------

I wonder if it's so that I am "the only living human on the entire
planet who accepts [my] definition of "human right". Before anything
is ever added to the repository of human thought, *somebody* had to
say it for the first time. Actually, JW, I consider that a great
compliment! I am quite flattered that you would give me such praise!

Thank you!

[Just Wondering]

On 4/25/2023 4:28 PM, !Jones wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 Just Wondering wrote:
>
>>> My point is that you either accept my definition of the term "human
>>> right", or you don't.
>>
>> You are the only living human on the entire planet who accepts
>> your definition of "human right". Therefore, discussion with
>> you on the subject should be avoided by all rational people.
>
> I will type as slowly and as clearly as I can, sir.
>
> I am not asking you to accept my definition... as, obviously, you do
> not. I am simply asking you to provide your own definition of the
> term "human right".
>
> You sit on the sideline of a discussion as our resident moral critic;
> however, you never provide an original idea. You'll never close with
> me because you know that you won't last long.
>
> Try me. Post your definition of a human right... let's see it.
>

I repeat: discussion with you on the subject should be avoided
by all rational people.

[!Jones]

In that case, do it. I still don't see your definition of "human
right". You have seen mine.

I don't know whether or not I'll still be here in a decade... none of
us do, of course. If you are, you can tell people that you knew first
person to have spoken the definition of human rights.

[!Jones]

Bye. (Don't let the door hit you in the ass!)