step 4 - when the arguement gets tough say 'we'll have to agree to differ' so nothing gets done

Maniac, I am trying to steer this debate in a more productive direction. Also, I'm not even a conservative, so thanks for the false categorization. My stated support for same-sex marriage I thought would be a giveaway for that, but you apparently did not read that as you also have not read the part in almost every post where I point out I will not engage a debate on philosophical merits.

From the beginning my main point was that the law would be ineffective. I regret ever including ANYTHING on the philosophical nature of the position because obviously it's a distraction and I have stated, almost once a post now, that I will not engage a debate on the philosophical merits or demerits of the issue, because that is an utterly unproductive avenue.

So I will simply remind you, again, my point remains uncontested.

("Is this part of the liberal playbook? When confronted with factual evidence that damages their position, they do everything in their pwoer, up to outright taunts and ad hominem, to steer the debate back to murky, grey-area territory from which it is impossible for them to be proven wrong?")

"what we actually mean is its against our morals and our morals must be right"

I feel the need to point out that, even in retorting to the statements of our moral position, you were simultaneously extorting on the supremacy of your own moral position (that is, the position of moral relativism) so, I'm going to call "Own Goal" on this point

To formalize this ONCE AGAIN, since that seems to be necessary:

"when the arguement gets tough say 'we'll have to agree to differ' so nothing gets done "

You are attempting to make an argument where there is no agreement on premise. That is an invalid argument, effectively it is no argument at all.

I have an argument with mutually agreeable premises, that nobody has yet contested.

That is to say, quite simply, I actually have an argument, and you do not.

Will this argument be addressed? You can either contend my points (at which point I will have to them modify and then present them again to be judged acceptable)

Again those premises are, to be judged independently of argument and on tehir own merits as is appropriate for the form;
1) A law with little to no effect is pointless
2) It would be improper to pass a pointless law
3) A complete gun ban is impossible under the second amendment

If you agree with all the premises, you may still take issue with my argument. To disprove the argument you would have to either raise an issue that highlights my presented supporting evidence as inappropriate, or instead forward evidence AGAINST my argument, and for the strongest result do both simultaneously

If you cannot do either (claim a false premise or claim my argument itself is false) there is nothing more you can do but cede the point; after those two issues are cleared it is simple logical equivalency statements.

@Clear Skies _ I never branded you a conservative, I asked if conservatives had a playbook, but I accept that this implied I thought you as being conservative (on this issue I think you are) but I'm happy to accept any classification you want to put on yourself.

I will address your central point and agree that it is probably best to move on from the moral arguement, but I have to point out my general standpoint on issues and how I think they should be resolved...

Abortion - available free of charge on demand limited to around 28 weeks. Who should decide on the policy for Ireland that currently prohibits just about all abortions? The Irish people via their government.

The Death Penalty - I'm completely against it, who should decide the US policy - the people of the US via their government.

Women Bishops in the Church of England - I'm all in favour - who should decide - members of the Church of England.

Same-sex marriage - I'm all for it - who should decide? The people via there government.

US Gun Laws - I'm against the private ownership of Guns, Who should decide? The US population via their government.

Building a motorway through my house - I'm against it - who should decide? The UK population via the government.

I'm not suggesting my moral stances on issues should be the only moral stance or think that I should decide such matters, I have trust in my fellow man to make collective decissions which I then accept 9even when I don't like them) I may protest and campaign for change but that's allowed surely?

With regard to your central point - changing the law doesn't solve the problem. You may be right today, but change never happens overnight. I think you or one of the pro-gun lobby said they weren't trying to defend against an authoritarian state today, but a future one. Our side has the same purpose, we may wish to change hearts and mind and tighten and tweak the laws as we go along in the hope that utopia can be reached, or we may just want to keep the debate alive rather than backing down just because the other side carry bigger sticks. Again, I have faith that eventually the 'right; (as in my subjective right) path will be followed, I doubt if my arguements on here will sway many people, but they may, and they may make others think just a little. Who knows.

3) A complete gun ban is impossible under the second amendment

I agree completely with this statement, but I don't think anyone is calling for an outright ban now. If they were and it gathered enough support, laws can be changed, to argue that the law is fixed in all matters is as I said earlier likeblowing the whistle when your team is winning.

See with agreement on a point, we may now get somewhere. You have acknowledged I am correct in that, under the present circumstances, gun control laws will not accomplish much, though it appears you are contesting my second stated premise, or more accurately, claim that while there may be no point at the present time in a future frame of reference one may look back and nevertheless claim that such a law- ineffective on its own in its original timeframe- did resolve to progress towards some conclusion. That, basically, this law falls under the old phrase "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts", that while this law may hold effectively zero value standing alone, if enjoined with other similar ones it may effect change. Ignoring the mathematical principle of operating on or with infinitesimals (from which I could conceivably formulate a fourth/fifth premise invalidating this resolution), I will let that point stand.

At the risk of going back on my promise of not debating philosophical points, I'd like further insight into this point you raise. I will limit myself to merely ask questions to glean further enlightenment on your perspective on this portion of the issue- afterall mutual understanding leads to mutual respect, and from mutual respect even ideas that are nominally irreconcilable may be discussed maturely. I will not take issue with your reasoning (though I may ask for further elaboration) to remain true on my word. I must for the sake of completeness attempt to interpret your views, but I sincerely hope that you do not take this interpretation as a challenge, and I freely welcome you to correct me if at any point I am wrong.

I will use the opportunity to further expound on my competing views on the issue as well, with the sincere hope this armistice for mutual understanding instead of combative points-scoring will be respected. True to my previous positions, I will not directly address any contention of my views, but instead see them as inquiries for further elaboration.

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

It seems on the surface that your position regarding all things is fairly straightforward, and based on my research into the field indeed has a strong history behind it- indeed the Peace of Westphalia 1648 established the right for sovereign bodies to determine their own course without interference of other sovereign bodies. This was mainly aimed at the concept of religion; the Westphalian treaties ended many (but not all) of the religions conflicts that rocked Europe since the beginning of the Protestant reformations.

I see a disconnect between the 'level' we are looking towards when we are implicitly defining the term 'right', that I hope was suitably highlighted in my phrasing of that paragraph. In one stroke, the treaties ensure that

1) Nations have the right to determine their own courses
and
2) This is a right that nations have by definition of being it's own sovereign entity

If we were to take this example and generalize it for the purposes of analysis, you argue exclusively from the perspective of number one, and I argue exclusively from the perspective of number two.

This is probably an over-simplification of both our positions.

We both appear to hold the view that an INDIVIDUAL'S moral code has no impact on the STATE'S moral code. That is, we both cede that which we believe to be correct is in no way relating to what the state should act upon, should others disagree with us.

You claim this, however, to be a moral or philosophical position. I personally think that is not quite the case; it may be a political position, or a sort of philosophical overlay, but at least what I am gleaning from your most recent post is that there are cases where you will not accept what laws are passed as, by definition, right or wrong. That is, you do not see the state as an absolute moral authority.

IF that is indeed the case, and again please correct me if I'm wrong, this too is a point we agree on.

And, if we agree on that point, there are two questions I would like to ask you, for further explanation, and fully acknowledging I cannot then go on to criticize your answers to them and understand that the positions you hold as evidenced by them are unassailable by mere physical fact, as metaphysical constructs. Please understand I do not ask these as loaded questions, and if the delivery is warranted as such I freely invite you to rephrase the question to your liking before answering.

1) Do you believe that the state has the power to, if given consent by any part or the whole of its population, to infringe upon any rights the people may have? That is, considering above the understood agreement on the point that the state is not a moral authority, do you believe the state is nevertheless above said moral authority in its operation?

and then,

2) Do you believe there are, if any, rights that an individual may have that the state (if above the moral authority) cannot transgress upon?

Subset to question two, dependent on your answer, would be the following;
2a) If such rights exist, what are they?
2b) Would a state infringing on these rights be illegitimate, or, would its people being thus infringed have reason to then consider the state illegitimate?

Also, perhaps a third question, though I believe I already know the answer, and that answer is "Yes"

3) Do you believe in Human Rights?
(If so, please list what you would consider human rights)

@Clear skies - excellent questions I'll skip over some of your comments some of which I agree with and some of which I don't, but I think my answers to your questions will cover most things.

1/. Yes - providing the consent is given by the people.
2/. Yes - prima nocta for example, I do not believe the state has the right to allow noblemen to sleep with the wives of married men on their wedding night. If such a thing was to happen I would consider the state to be illegitimate. You could go on to ask what would I do of my wife, daughter etc were taken by a nobleman enforcing his right, and I would bear arms against them.

I think I'd be correct in saying we could agree upon the following as representing our opinions.

1 if 75% of the popoulation wanted to ban guns, I would see that as legitimate and you wouldn't.
2 if the state enforced prima nocta we would both see it as illegimate regardless of what percentage of people supported it
3 if the state were to build a motorway through my farm and it was supported by the people, we would both see it as legitimate, although we might not like it.
4 if an individual were to start shooting animal rights scientists we would view their actions as illegimate.

The point I return to is that I have faith in my fellow man to get these issues right for the benefit of us all most of the time, and where they get it 'wrong' we know that things change over time and can try and bring about change. I would generally seek to do this peacefully by force of argument, you may wish to carry a big stick and rely on the might is right argument.

In summary I think our laws generally reflect the will of the people and change overtime, when I don't agree with laws I abide by them most of the time or accept the consquencies, I seek to change some laws if I feel passionately enough about them. I think if laws are imposed without the consent of the people the state can be considered illegitimate. I never believe I have all the answers and only laws I agree with should be observed.

3/. Yes I believe in human rights, but accept that they are not universally accepted and all tend to have exceptions which are constanted debated and changing. For example I believe in the right to life, but would join the army if I thought killing a few would save more: I believe in freedom of speech but accept that I shouldn't scream fire in a crowded cinema, I believe in freedom but accept that some people should be detained if they have a mental illness or have committed a crime, I believe strongly in freedom from torture, freedom from sexual abuse and property rights but accept that my property can sometimes be seized for the public good.

Well, I am unsure if this comprises one of the comments you skipped over, but your 'Prima Nocta' example does give me an answer I was looking for. You do consider, then, that the state is not above some greater moral authority; you believe in a code of ethics that the state is obligated to hold itself to, and that it must respect certain rights of people regardless of what the people decide the state should legislate. Should the state violate these rights of the individual, that state is then illegitimate.

In short you then believe in the concept of Natural Law, or Natural Rights.

I too have faith, in the general sense, that laws are in place for the good of society, and on the whole the social contract is a positive metaphysical construct. I am no anarchist. Furthermore the concepts of non-initiation of force would render any act I take against any other individual simply for holding differing views an unethical (therefore morally wrong) action. The main difference you highlight in the last paragraph of your post is not one of fundamental outlook, but one of method of operation; HOW you would affect change in the system you feel is currently wrong.

The state, however, is not another individual, and theoretical violence against the state can in no way be equated with theoretical violence against another person, even if the state is acting as an avatar for that person's views. (This ethical imperative is why your "Tyranny of the minority" by gun owners is a non-sequitor; that action is just as unethical as the action of the state against the gun owner, it is just as morally wrong.) This is because the state is in its base nature an oppressive (or at least binding, to use a less loaded term) actor, whereas another individual is not. Again an action against another individual, even one who holds opposing views, would not be ethical because that individual has not infringed upon my own rights. The state however in routine operation does so all the time (and to an extent is permitted to under the construct of a social contract) and is therefore a valid target should it cross any boundary into the fundamentally immoral in its operation.

(It should be noted where there is one formulation of the social contract theory where the will of a participating individual and the will of the state in fact are synonymous, or at least effectively so- that of Rousseau. However Rousseau's definition of the contract is encapsulated in a greater definition of the nature of man, and perhaps may not be appropriate to immediately apply just because it satisfies a single point presented)

Though you may disagree with us, you may then at least understand our insistence that gun rights remain completely respected- our camp believes that Right to Property is a natural right, and that guns can be demonstrated as our personal property. (Though even that is nuanced, as you point out in #4. Again we are dealing with simplifications here, but we have at least increased the resolution enough to locate where the fault between our understandings is)

Our difference, then, can simply be concluded that where both sides recognize the existence of and separation between Natural Rights and Legal Rights, one side believes that the Right to Property is a Natural Right and therefore unassailable by the state, whereas the other side claims it to be a Legal Right and therefore free to be legislated upon as society deems fit.

I hope that has illuminated the base schism between the opposing sides here.

If we were to then seek to further investigate where the split between our understanding of the Right to Property law lies, and please understand I am no longer running on observed responses but simply pure theory, it would be broken down along several lines:

1) Both sides accept it as a Legal Right.

TO be honest I'm not entirely sure where the Right to Property can be expressed as a legal right yet remain immune to legislation, unless there was some notion of what is 'reasonable law' that comes into effect. We would essentially have to increase resolution by another two steps to examine this.

2) Control proponents see it as a legal right, freedom proponents see it as a natural right, yet freedom proponents assent to Eminent Domain

The answer here probably would lie along the lines of a violation of the natural right to property is permissible if and only if it can be demonstrated that the violation will lead to either A) an objective increase in the wellbeing of the infringed individual (the definition of which would be tricky, as it would require the quantizing of what is perhaps unquantifiable)or B) an immediate of very quick return to the community as a whole in a manner which could not be achieved without the infringement taking place.

3) Both groups consider it a Natural Right and assent to the concept of Eminent Domain, with control proponents further believing that other property should also be confiscated

This would probably more or less come down to an extension on the concept of eminent domain; where the gun freedom group feels that the delivery on eminent domain must be either tangible or very quick, the pro-control group feels that simply any benefit to the community, over any timeframe, would suffice. This comes close to invalidating the concept that the Right to Property is a natural right at all, but that fundamental difference of definition alone still holds serious weight- I will not discount that this approach may still hold valid.



Of all these cases I am more liable to believe that #2 holds true for those outside America, and #3 holds true within it.

(An even further increase in resolution may determine that owning a piece of land is not actually OWNING property, merely entering an agreement with the state that controls said land to allow your private use of it. Considering property taxes could be viewed as a form of rent, this too would solve the dilemma inherent in the eminent domain problem; the property can be reclaimed by the government because it was never the property of the individual in the first place, merely leased)

Clear Skies.

You have illuminated the base schism very well. As always your writings are well thought out and well presented. They are, of course, completely wrong. (lol)

For you to argue that property rights are a natural right beggars belief. Let’s take real property as an example. There was a time when you could walk onto a piece of land, build a fence and defend it against all comers. Your natural right to the piece of land depended on you being able to defend it, if you popped to the local bar and came back and your land was taken over by someone else, you would have to fight for it, as he presumably thought it had been abandoned and he now had a natural right to it. To resolve these kinds of disputes people who claimed land had to register it and once registered as the legal owner you didn’t have to fight for it every time someone tried to take it from you as the state would now regard you as the owner and would, through the courts, evict any trespassers and uphold your claim.

The benefit of state protection comes with certain conditions however. For example, the state can rescind your legal ownership if they needed to build a motorway through it, and give you compensation. The state can restrict what you build on the land, the state can restrict how far down you can claim and how high up you can claim, etc, etc. The state can also make laws about abandoned property and what happens to it if the person who owns it dies without any heirs and hasn’t made a will.

All the above set out the legal terms in which you can deal with real property.

Now if property rights were ‘natural’ rights you could stand your ground when the state wanted to build a motorway, you could stop aeroplanes flying overhead, you could stop people mining coal or building underground train tunnels, and you could walk on to a piece of land left by someone who had died and claim it as your own.

I could problem go on and on about how legal rights protect our chattels and intellectual property as well as real property, but I think you get the drift.

"The benefit of state protection comes with certain conditions however. For example, the state can rescind your legal ownership if they needed to build a motorway through it, and give you compensation"

This may be true in the UK, but not here in the US. In the US, we can refuse to give it up and take it to court, an independent arm of the state, essentially outside of the state. So in your extreme example of the motorway, the state can't just take it even with compensation. Instead, they would be forced to show how the motorway is for the greater good *and* prove that against the property rights of the landowner, usually showing the property to be in disrepair or a blight to the community. So here in the US, the courts often make these decisions and very often, make the decision in favor of the landowner if they live on the property. Taking a few feet from the front or back is normally approved. Cutting down trees is hit or miss, but taking entire houses currently being lived in by the owner is rarely approved.

Draugnar - the fact that th UK have a different arrangement and that the US take the matter to a court, only reinforces the fact that property rights are a legal rathr than a natural construct

Maniac - If I understand you correctly, couldn't your argument be taken as an argument against all natural rights? For example, the right to life - we could say that in times past you had to defend yourself against all comers, and we only gained the right to life when Moses or Hammurabi or Pharoah proclaimed "you shall not murder". Is that your position, or have I misunderstood?

FlemGem - Yes. The earth is billions of years old and in that time people have fought and killed and died for many reasons, we have sacrificed our children to sun gods, made others fight to the death in gladiator pits, invaded lands for their treasures, need I go on. Now each of those who have suffered may have claimed a natural right to life, but is is fairly meaningless until somone codifies what is an isn't acceptable in a society. The fact that these codes differ between societies and ages should give you a good pointer that they are manmade legal constructons rather than 'natural' universally accepted rights.

Human Rights are of course to be welcomed and the greater degree of universal acceptance the better, but can you see just the 50,000 odd members of this site agreeing on what the right to life means. Lets start with abortion, and the death penalty and what about war and what about allowing people to die because we have the resources to feed them but choose not to?

Rights tend to depend on the era that you live and the location that you live as well as who you are (a woman, a man, a child, gay/straight, first born, disabled black/white, rich or poor) I'm all for equal rights but I think you'll agre we are still along way from that.

I happened to be half listening to the bill on Royal Primagenutre earlier. At one point in UK history such a debate, would have been odd - we had the devine right of Kings and the eldest son inherited. Now we want to move away and allow a first born female to take precidence over a second born son. What tickled me is that it is being heralded as a step along the road to equality, the fact that the second born is now disadvantaged and every other child apart from royal children remain disadvantaged seems to have escaped our legislators completely. That said, the once revered 'Natural' rights of Kings is being modernised and altered inline with laws made my the people's representative. Would you and others argue that Kings have a 'natural' right to the throne, or do you accept that it is now a legal right to the throne, a legal right that can be altered and amended in time?

So Nazi Germany had a manmade legal construction that certain people didn't have any rights at all, indeed were untermenschen and could be disposed of. Nothing wrong with that? It was their legal code, after all. Who are we to judge?

I hate to jump to the extreme Nazi example, but I have to point out the ridiculousness of this argument. By what standard can you say "we all deserve equal rights", but not simply accept whatever code of rights is in place? How does Martin Luther King, Jr. stand up against the unjust system of his time, if we are supposed to be content with the rights as they are defined?

You have to have a standard outside of human constructions. Even if you argue that Rights are human constructs, based on society, when you argue for a change to that construct, you are measuring the current system against some standard. That standard--those ideals--there are your Inalienable, Natural Rights.

What good is any other right if you don't have a right to property? What good is a right to free speech, if you can't eat? What good is free religion, if you aren't allowed to provide shelter and clothing to your family? How can you be free in thought and conscience, if you are dependent for your daily maintenance? "No, we don't restrict your political views, but if you have the wrong ones, there goes your farm/job." The right to property, to keep what you earn/build/create/grow is fundamental to being a free human being.

Good point dipplayer - so do you have the inalienable natural right to kill someone who is attacking you or your family?

You have the natural right of defense. Exactly what measures you can take, what mitigating circumstances might intervene, etc.--those are the issues for societies to codify.

More jaw-jaw, less war-war

So how can you have a natural right to life and a natural right to kill someone in self defense? Society decides which rights takes precident, I am certainly not saying I agreed with sacrificing children or the Nazis but it underlines that not all people throughout time and in different locations agree that the Right to Life is 'natural' otherwise they wouldn't ignore that right so brazenly.

I could say the same thing about all the rights you mention - the right to free speech is limited all over the world even today, you may agree with some of the restrictions and disagree with othr restrictions, but we are a long way from agreeing on a universally accepted Freedom of Speech.

The right to property seems absolute, but I've already listed the conditions that state puts on real property, look at intellectural property like inventions and patents that are limited in years, look at stolen goods that an unwitting buyer buys without notice and for fair value; the original owner is deprived of those goods in many jurisdictions, but not in others. If rights aren't universally accepted, how can they be natural?

I agree by the way that some rights should be beyond dispute and every country should sign up to them, the freedom of sexual abuse for example, freedom from torture, freedom of Speech and religion, but I think the only way to set them in stone (so to speak) is for mankind to draft the laws and have systenms that hold people to account if they are broken.

"So how can you have a natural right to life and a natural right to kill someone in self defense?"

The right to defend one's life is the seminal element of the right to life. Without the right to defend one's life, is there really a right to life at all? One has to remember that our Republic was founded upon the basic premise that unless one is infringing upon the rights of another, they are free to do as they please. But, if they infringe upon the rights of another (by threatening their life, for example) the party whose rights have been infringed has legal redress -- either through the courts, or through immediate action the case of imminent threat.

You still don't get it. Just because during most of human history and in most human societies rights are trampled doesn't mean they don't exist. No, we don't always agree on the particulars, whether freedom of religion includes polygamy, for instance, or whether freedom of expression includes pornography. That's not the point.

The right to self-defense is the right to life. I have the right to protect my life, by defensive means. If someone is threatening my life, he has put his own right to life in jeopardy.

As to the original question posed by Obi:

Remember the history of our Republic. We were formed by our ability and willingness to take up arms against the most powerful army in the world. Right or wrong, our Republic then fought its way to the Pacific, it fought the Spanish, the Mexicans, and the British again. Our founding fathers, Jefferson in particular, repeatedly and emphatically stated that Liberty MUST be protected from the inevitable rise of tyranny by a well armed citizenry.

The argument that the Founder never envisioned the types of weaponry that exist today is a spurious argument -- it's all relative. True, a AR-15 is no match for a drone armed with cruise missiles, etc. But, firearms in the hands of literally tens of millions of citizen is a HUGE deterrent to a would be tyrant. Yes, they could launch an all out overwhelming attack which would render personal fire arms irrelevant. But, barring such an event, it is boots on the street, knocking on doors, and dealing face to face with the people. Read Solzhenitsyn, that will tell you all you need to know.

This is why, obiberal!!

http://www.theonion.com/articles/62yearold-with-gun-only-one-standing-between-natio,30984/

@ MM - I appreciate the Solzhenitsyn reference. If I recall, he wasn't talking about citizens taking on tanks and fighters, he was talking about citizens standing up to the secret police who were kicking in doors at midnight. If the members of a community - town, apartment building, etc. - unite in their resistance to such "police" activity then the state would have to send in the tanks, which completely blows the state's cover and utterly deligitimizes the government. Is that about right?