And I continue to say that without a transcendent standard by which we measure the reality of our current systems and structures, there is no way to say that those structures are inadequate or unjust.

"to suggest that those rights already exist 'naturally' is bizarre and defies the evidence of history and pre-history. "

An alternative explanation of the evidence of history is that there are natural rights/laws, but that humans aren't very good at following them. This seems quite plausible to me, because even when we do codify our morals we have a terrible time living up to them. The American founders, for example, trumpeted "all men are created equal" while they enslaved Africans. They could clearly see the natural rights of man, they just couldn't live up to it. On a personal level I'd suggest that if we are honest with ourselves we all have a difficult time living up to our own highest aspirations, wouldn't you say?

@Maniac - I have tried to read all of this. It has been an interesting and very civil discussion and I applaud both sides for that. But the one thing you keep neglecting to answer and actually twist is that the Right to Life is the natural right. The right to defend one's self when one's life is put at risk is an extension of that right to life, On that issue, however, I don't believe that the use of excessive force in that defense qualifies as a right. Someone charges another with a knife, the second person can't pull out an Uzi and mow him down. But if a criminal breaks into your house and threatens you and your family with a semi-automatic handgun in his possession, having an AR-15 is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable response. If a drunken fireman is wielding a fire axe, the AR-15 might be overkill when a simple handgun would have sufficed, but a SWAT officer has a mental break and starts wielding a police issue fully-automatic rifle with riot gear on, then an AR-15 may not be enough.

So the natural right isn't to kill another. It is to prevent them killing you or your family in defense of the innocent life, not in defense of all life as the assailant has already made that an impossibility.

@Draugnar - The Right to Bear Arms is not an extension of the Right to Life (be it natural or not) but part of the Rights to Liberty (which is not about the IF contained in the former, but about the HOW). As such the potential cases enumerated by u are NOT a justification for the R2BA.

Positivistic logic aside, even teleologically speaking ur justification is not correct. If indeed u are implying that some kinds of guns (and their use) have a specific purpose in specific situations of self-defense, than one must also weigh in their usefulness. I.e., of course u might wish an AR-15 or heavier stuff against a crazy SWAT - but even in the unlikely event that u will be targeted by such an individual, u might not be capable to handle even the heaviest weapon in an appropriate or meaningful manner unless u have undergone similar training. Second, concerning ur other examples: such situations r highly different from Holywood movies or computer games. It is in such surprise situations not bigger gun - smaller gun, but stress reaction against stress reaction. Most of the time though, the robber would win, were he really a danger for ur life (and probably even so). The fireman situation calls even less for a gun, but for some psychological strength and some MA techniques at best.

On the downside: widely accessible firearms, esp. semi-automatics, etc. increase the risk of an intruder being armed with guns instead of muscles or knives, increase the risk firemen having not just axes, increases the risk of people who would otherwise (not nice, but still) burn cars, destroy windows and so on to get over a divorce/job loss/… use their hand guns and automatics instead, and last but not least - allow the potentially crazy SWAT to have the arms at home (which should not be the case) he is trained to use.

This considered, the R2BA is counterproductive for most of its presumable purposes. Applying things such as precautionary principles, it is maybe the most dangerous solution to the problems it is intended to solve. I understand people who like weapons, I do, too. But I also think one needs to be honest to oneself and about the situation. I therefore would be against an R2BA. But I am not American, so I just wonder…

Maniac; I think a fundamental point you're missing is that a natural right is not by definition unassailable, only inalienable. You seem to think the latter leads to the former by consequence, but this is not true, as we are all beings of free will.

That is, any number of entities can to any degree ignore that right, but that doesn't mean the right ceases to exist.

Your natural right to life is ignored by someone who killed you, but that doesn't mean the right ceased to exist, merely that it was infringed upon (in totality, with lethal results)

This is unlike a legal right, which DOES cease to exist if legislated away by the state, however even a legal right does not cease to exist if the state infringes upon it transiently, or if another individual infringes on it. I feel that your responses only then further cements the understanding you believe the right to property to be legal, and not natural.

And, using moral relativism to smooth over a debate that otherwise would again devolve into a pointless case of "You're wrong and stupid, no YOU'RE wrong and stupid!", this is simply a difference in perspective and, in fact, neither is wrong.

"Someone charges another with a knife, the second person can't pull out an Uzi and mow him down."

Although I agree with Draug, that is not exactly the case. Self-defense law revolves almost entirely upon the ubiquitous legal concept of "reasonableness." If the hypothetical victim being charged with a knife is deemed to have a REASONABLE fear for his life, then the use of deadly force would be deemed appropriate. Reasonableness is determined by the "finder or fact," i.e., either the jury or the judge. There is no "bright line" test to determine what is reasonable and what is not -- it's determined by the facts of the situation.

@X3n0n -

I get your point about the reaction and training. As a former active US Marine (there are no former Marines, just Marines no longer on active duty. Arrugh!) I don't always think about the reaction and ability to handle the weapon because I was trained by the best to handle far more powerful weapons than an AR-15 and, I would more than likely switch to my MCMAT-taught skills when confronted with anyone within hand-to-hand range or without a projectile weapon. So, yes, I get the point.

@MichMan - I should have clarified that the mowing down with the Uzi was overkill if other means were available (say a hand gun was also at hand, or a pitch fork or some other weapon that would keep the crazy out of arm's reach, or special training such as MCMAT teaches for disarming people with bladed weapons and turning those weapons back on the attacker).

@Clear Skies - I take your point about unassailable and inalienable. If it appears that I have conflated the two at times you may be right.

However, the fundemental point as I see it is this. The Natural rights proponents believe that their are certain rights that exist in all eras in all locations and should be universally applied, fought for if necessary and then protected. So that when England was ruled by a ruthless king the Natural Right to Life existed, but it was ignored.

My point about Legal Rights, is that Rights only matter when they are codified and upheld with punishments for infringements. Whilst we may agree on grand outline of rights, it is only when they are put into a legal setting that they mean anything. It is no good saying we all have the freedom of speech if you get locked up for insulting a prophet.

Also what the Natural Rights advocates tend to do is say that there are certain natural rights (which they happen to agree with) and when it comes to a debate about anything they can say - but the right to blah, blah blah is a natural right therefore discusssion closed. If of course someone suggests that for example it is a natural right to marry and found a family they may agree, but then disagree when it is extended to gay marriage and say that that isn't natural.

Frankly, I don't care if you want to call rights, natural rights, or Human rights or whatever. But I would like you to acknowledge that what you call a natural right others may object to and they may be right. In 200 years time we may look back and think, did we really believe we could 'own' anything when we come into this world with nothing and generally leave with just a pile of debt. We might look back and think why did we bring in laws about underage sex when it is 'Natural' for a girl to mensturate at 12 or 13; we may reverse some laws about religion or stiffen some laws about genocide, we might enshrine a law that gives a guaranteed right to the Internet (as Finland have done) What I am saying is people view of what is right and what Rights people have is transient, trying to close down an arguement by asserting some such right or another is 'natural' is just lazy in my mind. It used to be just religious people who would justify their views by saying things like 'We can have 3 brides, because it says so in this book' now it seems everybody wants to say things like we can all keep our own cannabis, gun, racin powder, nuclear submarine because property rights are natural and cannabis, guns, rain etc are property.

Well, short of divine revelation, such things are never settled completely. We human beings get to keep discussing and arguing and trying to find our way. We keep trying to find the best approximation of Justice on this planet, even though that is never quite in our grasp. But that doesn't mean that the ideal Justice doesn't exist. If we give up on believing that there is a transcendent Right, than the only recourse we have is to Might. Then only the strong, whoever is in charge, gets to make the rules, and we have no argument against them but to try and become the top dogs ourselves. We'll have regressed and lost everything Western Civilization has stood for.

That goes into the intricacies of the social contract, which is and always was an issue of contention, definition, and redefinition. I'm still holding to the principle of moral relativism in this forum because we're neither equipped nor inclined to participate in a full philosophical debate, but essentially, it's just different formulations of that theory.

In the interests of said moral relativism, that no other philosophical stance on the issue is wrong. That I'm right, -and- that you're right (ethical pluralism) however by that exact same vein you're not going to get me to admit I'm wrong on that point.\

"But I would like you to acknowledge that what you call a natural right others may object to and they may be right."

In essence, all I'm trying to get you to acknowledge is your own point. I have, in basically every post on the issue, said my moral code was not the exclusively correct one, and I'm not sure why you haven't understood that from the many dozens of times I have so far said it.

Sure my moral code may be wrong, but then again, YOUR moral code (and obviously you have one, in critiquing mine as 'wrong') may, equally, be wrong and the future may in fact 'prove' me right. Because, afterall, we all approach this conflict from our own base values, your base values conflict with mine, and you cannot say mine are wrong any more than I can say yours are wrong, because we're not debating philosophy (and philosophical debates are terribly messy businesses anyway)

If it's really necessary I can go back to every post I've read and quote myself on the many times I said my moral system was not exclusively correct, Maniac. I'm terribly confused to why that's a point of contention at all.

And if I am to conclude you then will ask what our opposition to this law is, well everyone would support or oppose a law on the grounds of their own ethical code. We oppose gun control laws because it violates what we feel to be ethical conduct. That should right there conclude this debate on factual grounds and, if anyone is so inclined, would start a philosophical debate

The principle opposition to gun control laws (and the strength/fanaticism) of that opposition is then uncovered. Further asking "Why?" is therefore starting to tread all over this irreconcilable philosophical grounds and- as you yourself admit nobody can be sure what is morally right or wrong- further debate in this form cannot be concluded.

Gun control isn't about guns; it's about control.

(Not my phrase, but it's a good one nevertheless and perfectly sums up the argument against control)

So let me get this straight. A bunch of racist goofs declare that gun ownership is a basic human right, and you morons eat it all up.

The founding fathers - yea right.

Moron americans...

Fuck you, Maple. Your ignorance is showing.

Ignorant of what? You yankee doodle cocksucker.

@lear skies - you are 100% correct that either of our moral values may be wrong and what is right and wrong can change over time. You are also 100% correct that we both oppose [support] gun control laws because it violates [reinforces] what we feel to be ethical conduct.

Now if we had a moral difference about say should speed limits be reduced by schools you may take one side and I may take the other - and a decision will have to be reached and one of us would be uphappy and grumble a little. But in the case of gun control, if a decision is made that goes against your moral code, which you accept could be wrong, then you [the gun lobby] wouldn't just grumble about it but maybe even take up arms. Your moral code is then reduced to - I don't care what others think, I'm so convinced I'm right I would be prepared to shoot others; moral code now becomes might is right.

I don't think that anybody starts of with the moral code - might is right, but if they do there is little point debating effectiveness of proposals and comparing evidence from other countries and looking at how we could maybe tighten things here and there if the upshot is always going to be (in Anglo-Saxon terms) - Fuck You, I'm keeping my guns.

I think you're confusing "might makes right" and "I believe strongly enough that this is right that I'll fight for it" (yes, even with might).

Might doesn't male right but freedom isn't free and must be defended, with might if necessary. 'Tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of the majority running roughshod over the minority? Or to take up arms and, by opposing, preserve freedom for all?

Ignorant of the achievements, the integrity and the intellects of the most gifted group of political leaders to live at any one time in history. Ignorant of the philosophical underpinnings of the American Founding, which incorporate all the political wisdom of Western Civilization. Ignorant of anything that contradicts your parochial, prejudiced viewpoint.

Maniac, it's the same thing as this: "Repeal the First Amendment? Fuck you, I worship how I want! Fuck you, I will say what I want! Fuck you, I will assemble as I choose!"

It's the position that these things are My Rights, and that I will exercise my rights no matter what.

WOW, the canuck with his deep thinking input.

Here is the bottom line, any real move against the 2nd amendment (or any of them) could very well do the impossible. It very well could bring this country into full fledged civil war, and Have no doubt that the military will not stay intact for such.

I accept that there are, of course, times where we have to fight for what we believe in. But what do we feel about people who fight for things we don't believe in? If the LBGT community had taken up arms to achieve gay marriage? If vegans starts bombing farms? If pro- life campaigners start killing woman who have killed their young? Should the IRA take up arms again until their aims are met. Maybe we should just do away with this voting and debating rubbish and just settle things on the battlefield. And here's the clincher what about Islamic terrorism, should we perhaps now accept that they have the right to commit atrocities providing they are doing it for a cause they strongly believe in?

We would of course become completely bogged down in internal warfare and there are never any winners, the defeated will just regroup and try again later, you are unlikely after all to change their views by killing their colleagues. If that's the future you want for you country and for the world generally, then so be it.

I prefer to think that our disagreements can be solved by discussion and compromise, the end result won't suit me, or you entirely, but it's better than us trying to kill one another every time we don't see eye to eye.

Maniac. That is an apples to oranges comparison. Taking up arms against the government enforcers who try to tale them.from you is fighting force with force. Bombing innocent farmers property is terrorism. Attacking churches or community centers by violent means becauae they disagree is terrorism. Now if the NRA attacked a family theme park to male a point then that would be terrorism.too. But defending your property from an armed intruder intent on taking your property is self defense. A better analogy would be a gay couple killing the angry mob that stormed their property.

So draugnar as you know in the uk we have very strict gun control. If a small minority thought as you and clear skies and others do, that gun ownership is a natural human right, is it acceptable for those people to own arms contrary to the uk laws and to use force until the government yields and allows people their natural rights?

We aren't talking about people wantonly becoming criminals. The issue is that guns are *legal* here. Ban guns and you make people who own them into criminals despite them having done nothing.

As far as what the UK does, we escaped the tyranny of British rule some 237 years ago. So your backwards little island nation that subjects its people to the whims of a monarchy and a house of lords who cannot be voted out of office is the lesser form of rule and not an example I would wish to follow.

And it is proper for those people to own them and use force to prevent them being taken away as they would any other property. I am sorry you don't see that the monarchy and British way of life is antiquated and that the US is a more advanced and progressive form of government founded to escape the despotism thatbis the British Monarchy.

So you would support uk gun owners owning illegal weapons and using them if necessary until the UK yield to their perceived natural right. A simple yes or no would do.