An anti told me I don't have any rights.


PDA






Drjones
January 10, 2003, 04:01 AM
So I have been debating via email with an anti who emailed me through the MM forums. He advocates a total ban on handgun sales to the public.

I can post some of the interesting tidbits of our prior emails upon request, but I thought you all would find his latest piece fascinating. I sure did. Hope you've got antacid nearby....

I don't believe you have any "rights," Strati. In fact, I don't know what "rights" are. There are only actions. I want to live in a gun-free country. I guess that is my "right." You want to live in a country that allows gun ownership. That is your "right." You do not have a universal "right" to own a gun. Hell, you and I don't even have a "right" to vote! I'm glad we currently are able to, though. You don't have a universal "right" to anything. In the United States the 2nd amendment, as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives you the "right" to bear arms.

That "right," however, could be taken away at any time. "Rights" are taken away and bestowed all over the world by different governments at different times for different reasons. Usually the reason for taking away or granting rights is based on utility, like I said before. Once enough people in this country get together and decide that you no longer have the "right" to a handgun, that "right" will be as illegal and immoral as your "right" to own a slave.

Which is not to say I equate owning a handgun with owning a slave, I'm just making a point: Rights are human constructs, and nothing more, and any attempt to prove them otherwise is question begging. There is NO arguing with that. Do you understand that? Do you know anything about morality and rights and things like that? You only have a right to own a gun because we the people, through our elected representatives, have decided that you do. When we decide you don't, you don't. Do you think there's some magical "right" system floating around in the ether? Do you get your "rights" from God?



:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :cuss: :cuss:

If you enjoyed reading about "An anti told me I don't have any rights." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Drjones
January 10, 2003, 04:02 AM
And my reply to that filthy email:


People with your mentality are the ones who created, perpetuated, justified, and condoned things like slavery and the Holocaust. This is because, as you said, you do not believe that each individual human being has certain inalieable rights. Granted, the concept of "rights" may be constructed by people, but they are not GRANTED by man, nor governments.

It is truly sad that you believe that governments and man GIVE rights to other humans. We may have created the concept, but we do not dispense them, for if man dispensed rights, he would be equally free to withhold or revoke them. And just because a government, group of people, or individual may be infringing upon or denying rights to other humans does not mean that the rights do not exist; it merely means they are being infringed.

People with your mentality can freely opress, kill, injure, and otherwise harm other humans because they can justify it all too easily; after all, people don't really have rights! Everything is relative!

People with your mentality would terrorize and oppress a minority. Just because a majority of people may agree with something does not make it right. Slavery used to be perfectly legal. Hell, the BIBLE speaks of slavery as if it was the will of god! Does that make it right? Certainly not.

Just because a majority believes something does not make it right nor correct. And a majority that forces its will upon a minority is evil, tyrranous, and oppressive.

"Let's take away their guns, they serve no purpose."

"Let's take away/limit/restrict their freedom of speech. We don't like what they are saying."

Bob Locke
January 10, 2003, 04:21 AM
You're a brave, brave man. And a tolerant one.

My reply wouldn't have been anywhere near as nice...

MitchSchaft
January 10, 2003, 04:26 AM
That's an awful lot of energy to be pouring into that guy.:uhoh:

WonderNine
January 10, 2003, 04:58 AM
Dr Jones, great response. But I think that guy is about 10,000 times beneath your intellectual level though. He only contradicted himself twice in his second sentence. Of course most anti's are minimum 100 times beneath you on average =)


Sorry about all the *** kissing, but you rule :D

twoblink
January 10, 2003, 05:15 AM
obviously this guy doesn't know the difference between a "right" and a "privilege".

Have him read 1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World.

The reason we live in a Republic and not a Democracy is that a Democracy = 51% oppressing 49%.

m.i.sanders
January 10, 2003, 05:28 AM
Very good Drjones. I'm impressed, by both you're argument and the fact you didn't verbally smack this num-nut upside the head.

Apple a Day
January 10, 2003, 06:24 AM
"In fact, I don't know what "rights" are."
That pretty much says it all. :eek:

2dogs
January 10, 2003, 06:54 AM
Drjones

Was this person pretending to be an AMERICAN? Are there more like that?

I'm afraid- very afraid.:what:

Bruce H
January 10, 2003, 07:03 AM
I wonder what this individual's thoughts would be about terminating his ability to use oxygen. Would probably find all sorts of rights that were considered sacred.

Leatherneck
January 10, 2003, 07:42 AM
Way to go, DR. I hope you don't have your heart set on converting that ummmm... *gentleman*. I think you're right on the money.
TC
TFL Survivor

yorec
January 10, 2003, 07:52 AM
The guy sounds rather addled to me. Whoever said "ignorance is bliss?"

Good luck...

cobb
January 10, 2003, 08:01 AM
Drjones, where did you dig this guy up from?

MacPelto
January 10, 2003, 08:17 AM
Enlighten me, please...what are th MM forums? I might like to get in on some of this action!

Monte Harrison
January 10, 2003, 08:51 AM
I happen to agree. There are no rights, only power: the power to compel and the power to resist. When the power to compel is stronger than the power to resist, the compellers win, and vice-versa, unless the holders of the superior power agree not to exercise it. Our power to resist the seizure of our weapons is strong enough to prevent it, right now. That is the only reason why we still have our weapons. The US has not vaporized Iraq, N. Korea, etc. inspite of the fact that we have the power to do so because we choose not to at this juncture.
Rebuttal?

bedlamite
January 10, 2003, 09:06 AM
MacPelto- http://www.Michaelmoore.com

Forums are currently down. Maybe his stage crew used to run them :D

MacPelto
January 10, 2003, 09:38 AM
Thank you, Bedlamite.

rock jock
January 10, 2003, 09:54 AM
The difference between the distorted ideology of this individual and reality would vanish in the blink of an eye were he to stare down the barrel of a gun and contemplate his own death. His understanding of his right to live would make a sudden and dramatic appearance.

Tamara
January 10, 2003, 09:58 AM
My right to bear arms comes from nothing more complex or mystical than the fact that I have a large primate brain and opposable thumbs. Take away all my guns, knives and swords, and I can still pick up sticks and rocks.

enichols
January 10, 2003, 10:42 AM
Drjones-
That was a great, eloquent response to that oxygen thief. I've been to the MM forums pretty frequently, and the fact that people out there have the same mentality as this person is truly frightening.

Out of curiosity, what was the windbag's response to your email?
-Nic

4v50 Gary
January 10, 2003, 11:09 AM
DrJones - for a youngster (comparatively speaking of course), you did very well. Kudos.

Robert J McElwain
January 10, 2003, 11:42 AM
Actually, the anti- guy makes some worth while real world points that we had better pay attention to. Right now, the antis are a noisy minority. If we're not vigilant and we allow them to become a majority, all our posturing about our rights won't stop the government from coming into our homes and taking the guns, regardless of what we think our rights are.

The majority does have the ABILITY to contol the lives of everyone else. That's not about rights. It's how democracy works. We need to pay attention when there are misguided people willing to subvert our rights to their ideology.

Bob

Thumper
January 10, 2003, 11:47 AM
I have to admit, Drjones, I sometimes become annoyed by your "youthful exuberance."

Then I remind myself that you're a MUCH stronger fighter for the RKBA than I was at your age.

We've watched you go from a kid that had the tiniest bit of trouble accepting full responsibility for his uncle's wrecked Viper to a keyboard warrior promoting self-reliance. That's pretty cool.

Word of advice, though: Get offline sometime. There's a big ol' world out there.

:cool:

Viking6
January 10, 2003, 11:54 AM
Rights without power is like a sleigh ride without bells.

ojibweindian
January 10, 2003, 12:00 PM
Then I guess he doesn't have the right to affordable healthcare, a safe and secure place to live, adequate nutrition, etc. etc. etc.:D

Chris Rhines
January 10, 2003, 12:15 PM
Believe it or not, there are actually some in the freedom movement who would agree. I find that fact far more depressing than the rantings of some self-hating collectivist.

But agreed, excellent response. :)

If we can't articulate where our individual rights come from, to say nothing of what they are, how can we hope to defend our application of them?

- Chris

45R
January 10, 2003, 12:41 PM
Dr. Jones-
Fill me in on the wreaked Viper. :what:

A fine response to the anti's email. My girlfriend at one time was anti-gun. I have since changed that by taking her shooting and educating her on basic gun safety. She now goes shooting with me once a week. The great thing is that opened up an oppurtunity for her mother to come out and shoot with us on a few occasions since. Everyone at the range was at their best behavior and her mind has since changed about guns.

(Readers: The point is Dr. Jones is doing a good thing.) It starts by educating one person on the 2nd Amendment. That person will in turn educate others. Unfortunetly some of us are looked at as Rambo types just because we enjoy shooting, we are no different then the person who plays chess or enjoys bowling. We are passionate about what we enjoy.

As far as "rights" :

I don't believe you have any "rights," Strati. In fact, I don't know what "rights" are. There are only actions. I want to live in a gun-free country. I guess that is my "right."


He advocates a total ban on handgun sales to the public.

Why in the heck did he contradict himself by telling you, that you have no rights, but then its his "right" to live in a gun-free country, and he also advocates a total ban on handguns to the public. Does he know that rifles are considered guns. :banghead: :banghead: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: That my friend is a fascist attitude.

Your doing a good job. Keep it up!

45R

Calamity Jane
January 10, 2003, 12:46 PM
Great rebuttal, Drjones. I'll be interested in what the blissninny has to say in response.

Drjones
January 10, 2003, 12:48 PM
Monte and others who would agree with this slime to some degree:

I do agree with him in that rights are human constructs. The fact that I don't believe in god forces me to be more creative in explaining where my rights come from, though I of course respect those who believe god gave them their rights.

One caveat about believing god gave you your rights; he can also take them away, thus they are not truly inalieable.

Anyhow, let's please not start another discussion on where our rights come from. Read this thread for more on that topic: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=587&highlight=where+do+rights+come+from

SO, to respond to Monte and others: I like what Blackhawk said: We have rights because we have all agreed that we should. Rights are like money; the only reason money has value is because we agree it does.

I just sent that response to him last night, and haven't gotten a response yet. I'll post it when I do get it.

Odd, I've told him we should discuss gun-control here, but he won't take me up on it...:scrutiny:

Depending on his response to my email, I may just tell him politely that I do not wish to contine discussion with him, as it is going nowhere fast. You guys are right; I have FAR better ways to spend my time. (Like here!)

Oh, and Thumper: I'm going to Tahoe for the weekend, so I won't be online at all. :neener:

Thank you all for the kind words and encouragement! It means a lot...

Thumper
January 10, 2003, 12:57 PM
:D

David Park
January 10, 2003, 01:13 PM
Rights are like money; the only reason money has value is because we agree it does. As a student of free market economics, I have a small quibble with this statement. Money should have inherent value, apart from the value we assign it. Many cultures use valuable goods for money (Virginia used to use tobacco), and it was still true when we had gold- or silver-backed paper money. With the switch to fiat currency, the "real" value of money has been replaced with an arbitrary value controlled by central banks, which is just another means of government control and taxation. :fire: (For example, inflation is not a problem with gold, because you can't create more gold out of thin air.)

Anyway, back on topic, rights can only come from within. "Action" (as this joker calls it) based on rules, whether those rules come from democratic voters or a single dictator, is just force from outside. It's understandable that this idiot likes the concept of "action" and dislikes the concept of "rights" because this allows him to do anything with a clear conscience, no matter the harm it causes others, as long as his friends and fellow voters go along with it. Debating with someone like this is largely a waste of time because it's like debating with a blank slate, there are no hard concepts to be refuted, only "feelings, nothing more than feeeelings." :rolleyes:

HS/LD
January 10, 2003, 01:29 PM
One thing that is glaringly obvious on the michaelmoore board is that the Antis have terrible spelling, grammar, syntax and are frequently are unable to understand even the most basic of concepts.

And these are the ones that actually have English as a first language.

After a short time visiting that board I have concluded the 'anti' members are complete morons. Evdenced by the email to DrJones.

HS/LD

Drjones
January 10, 2003, 01:31 PM
After a short time visiting that board I have concluded the 'anti' members are complete morons. Evdenced by the email to DrJones.

Heh. You should see some of the OTHER stuff he emailed me! :rolleyes:

I can post if you like....

H Romberg
January 10, 2003, 01:33 PM
Another reply for this guy:


You're partly correct. I'd have to say you have a "right" to that which you can effectively claim as your own. In other words, if you can defend yourself, you have a right to live, otherwise, your life is a privilege that can be revoked. In order to make a privilege into a right, you need to actually have the ability to enforce it, or you're just deluding yourself (like if you claimed exclusive advertizing rights on the moon).

This applies to the 2nd Amendment debate as follows: A couple hundred years ago, some old dudes got together and did us a really big favor by setting up their new government with the EXPRESSED GOAL of protecting certain "rights" for the people of this country. In fact, they set up the government they were building with checks and ballances specifically intended to keep the government from doing much of anything else. Then, since they didn't trust people with that much power, they set up competing branches within the government, designed to keep any one faction from ever becoming powerful enough to rule without the consent of at least one more. Lastly, they didn't trust the concept of government itself, so they wrote a list of things the government was supposed to do and things that it's supposed to leave the heck alone. You can see the US Constitution for a complete list of the former, and a partial list of the latter.

By the way, it cost a whole pile of lives and blood to set up a country that way, but it's been worth it. Our government (most of the time) tries to act in the best interests of the voters, rather than trying to rule them as most others do. The result is a socio-economic climate that allows growth at all levels, a country that doesn't commit the kind of wholesale murder of its own citizens that has been cmmonplace throughout history, and last but not least, one heck of an economy.

The Constitution and our country's devotion to the principles it includes are worth keeping. We really don't want to mess with it, especially when doing so would make our already overreaching government even more powerfull.

Drjones
January 10, 2003, 01:59 PM
You have no idea what my mentality is like, nor people like me.

I didn't say I don't have a PERSONAL idea of rights and which ones I would like to see people have. I said there are not UNIVERSAL rights, Strati. Big difference. Before you get personal and compare me to Hitler and a slave owner, you better know a bit more about me. How dare you be so childish as to throw out the Nazi and Slavery references, which is always the last resort of the weak minded or immature. In fact, I used to do it myself on a regular basis when discussing big issues. Shame on you.

Think about what you just said, Strati. You said that someone like me who doesn't believe in a universal moral framework can justify slavery, murder, whatever. What's stopping you from doing EXACTLY the same thing? You're in a worse situation, though, once you determine something is a "right," you are locked into it forever being a "right," because rights are immutable and ubiquitous according to you. How can that be, Strati? Do you know what your rights are? Who told you? Who is the arbiter of what is your "right" and what isn't? God? You already told me (rightly) that God doesn't know what "rights" are. So who decides? You, Strati? Somebody else? Who? Is it your "right" to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater? Is it your "right" to own C-4? Why is it your "right" to own a gun? You CANNOT construct a universal moral code without question begging. It's impossible. Do you understand that? Impossible. Do you even know what question begging is? No one has ever done it, and no one ever will -- unless God him(her?)self comes down from on high and decrees it to us.

By the way, why do you think I don't own slaves? How about murder? Do you think I'm a murderer? Do you think I'm a burglar? Why not? According to your logic, I should be since I don't believe in universal morals. How can it be that I choose to lead a sane, crime-free, violence-free life, while staying married for fifteen years to a woman who doesn't really love me in order to help raise my three (honor student) children?

To show you how stupid your logic is: Do you think slave owners believed in universal morals? How about the Germans? Were there millions of moral relativists running around Germany in the 1930s? Hardly. The vast majority of people on the planet believe in universal morals. Problem is, universal morals are DEMONSTRABLY illogical, since they are question begging.

I TOLD you this issue was all about rights and cost/benefit analysis. You wouldn't believe me. "NOOOOO" said Strati! "I know what this is about!!" How wrong you were.

There. Rant over, you gun-loving violence monger! ;-)

Drjones
January 10, 2003, 02:09 PM
What exactly is the difference between "morals" and "rights", exactly? I kinda know, but want clarification.

Thanks

PATH
January 10, 2003, 02:10 PM
Are we not endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights....

Whatever happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Does anyone read the documents that are the foundation of our great Republic!

God help us!

MitchSchaft
January 10, 2003, 02:38 PM
What exactly is the difference between "morals" and "rights"

Being an atheist, you will never know that answer.

davera
January 10, 2003, 02:42 PM
A cursory reading of the US Constitution will show that the RIGHTs mentioned are NOT bestowed upon individuals by the government. The Constitution presupposes that these rights are already ours, endowed by the creator (or by what ever theological entitiy you wish) upon us. The Bill of Rights is the guarantee that the government CANNOT take those preexisting rights away from us.

Leatherneck
January 10, 2003, 02:57 PM
while staying married for fifteen years to a woman who doesn't really love me BINGO! :rolleyes:
TC
TFL Survivor

Chris Rhines
January 10, 2003, 03:09 PM
Difference between morals and rights - Morality tells you what forms of behaivor are acceptable or not. Rights are a means of applying morality to human action.

Clear as mud?

- Chris

Bostonterrier97
January 10, 2003, 03:38 PM
DrJones...agree with the Anti.."Tell him we really don't have Rights Anymore..because our Govnerment is very busy at passing unconstitutional legislation which enables Law Enforcement Agencies to Spy on people without requiring a Warrant, Incarcerate People without Trial,Confiscate people's property without paying for it" Tell him that he is Right...we really don't have Rights anymore, instead we have "Priviledges".

Tell him that Habeus Corpus is becoming a non-issue, that the Federal Government is no longer restrained by the 4th Amendment..since they are very busy conducting illegal (warrantless) wiretaps. That the Federal Government no longer respects the 5th Amendment on Property Rights.
That the Right of a person to own and carry a firearm is being legislated out of existence.

And that it is only a matter of time before the Federal Government will require that all Journalists to be Licensed.
And News Media outlets will be subject to censorship.

Tell him that it is very reasurring that there are people like him who TRUST Government to have all of the power and weapons.

MAKOwner
January 10, 2003, 04:29 PM
I would have just told that guy that those of us with the weapons and the will/ability to use them are going to be the ones who get to "grant" these "rights" then.

"I'm armed and I'm telling you you're not taking them." is about all you need to say to that guy.

Nightcrawler
January 10, 2003, 04:54 PM
I greatly dislike moral relativists. People like that are the ones who stand by and say nothing when atrocities are committed. "It's not MY fault the Jews are being incinerated. It's not about right and wrong, after all. Right and wrong are just ideas. I'll just go about my life and stick my head in the dirt, completely oblivious to the suffering of others. Because I don't care about them anyway, and besides, it'll NEVER happen to ME."

Nightcrawler
January 10, 2003, 04:54 PM
Oops, doubletap. I hate dial-up.

Harold Mayo
January 10, 2003, 06:05 PM
The guy is a victim, pure and simple. He may have opinions but he will bow meekly to anyone who seems stronger.

Part of the whole point of the general philosophy ascribed to by most members of this forum, whether they call themselves conservatives, libertarians, Constitutionalists, or whatever, is that individuals are important. There is no reason AT ALL that a responsible individual should be forced to conform to any ideology other than his own. The ONLY caveat is that the whims of that individual should not bring harm to others unless those others mean harm to that individual.

The Golden Rule rules all.

Responsibility for an action rests squarely on the shoulders of the person who has performed that action. Yes, perhaps the murderer or rapist had a bad upbringing that resulted in the mindset that caused him to commit his crime, but it is HIS crime...HE made the choice. Where does responsibility end? Where does the buck stop? This is a major point in the current state of affairs in our society and the guy from the MM board is obviously partial to going with the flow because, to his mind, the majority is always right and that takes responsibility away from him. To paraphrase another poster, this guy would make a great little Nazi for Hitler.

"Rights" are given and taken away by the people? He obviously DOESN'T understand the whole concept.

:banghead: :cuss: :banghead: :cuss:

Blackhawk
January 10, 2003, 06:09 PM
I don't believe you have any "rights," Strati. In fact, I don't know what "rights" are. That should have ended the discussion right there. "I don't know what rights are, but you don't have any." :rolleyes:

MeekandMild
January 10, 2003, 08:23 PM
Jonesey, I think if I was you, I'd be tempted to ask this person to only contact me on the public board.

I would publish every email he sent me on the public board if it was fit to print and send it to his ISP with the complaint he was harrassing me if it was obscene, profane, abusive or any close approximation.

Of course you don't see me on the MM board in the first place. In the words of Clint Eastwood, "Only with human beings.":rolleyes:

Standing Wolf
January 10, 2003, 08:26 PM
Leftists are to American civil rights as the A.I.D.S. virus is to health.

Jmurman
January 10, 2003, 08:40 PM
I'm sure that he would vehmently object to any infringement on speech, right? Search and seizure?....guess what? The Second Amendment provides the backbone for those "other" rights that we take for granted.

sixgun_symphony
January 10, 2003, 08:54 PM
The only rights that exist are the ones that a person can take and keep.

If it were otherwise, then the 2nd Amendment would not be necessary.

The weakness of the Constitution is that Liberal judges can "interpret" anything they want. The 9th Circuit proved just that.

Thus we need to get more honorable judges on the bench.

Diesle
January 10, 2003, 09:32 PM
Is that the (MM) Michael Moore forum...?

What a bag of crap that dude is.

Diesle

Rebeldon
January 10, 2003, 10:28 PM
The belief that only the government, through its agents, has the right to do legal violence, is pure statism. For any government to infringe on the right of the electorate to keep and bear arms is to do violence upon their liberty. If the people are disarmed, they are relagated as subjects, and not regarded as citizens. Politicians who desire to disarm the people have the desire to rule, not govern.

G-Raptor
January 10, 2003, 10:38 PM
Ignoring all the rational arguments, it all comes down to a simple reality - you only have the rights that you can defend.

The next time an "anti" tells you that your don't have a right to own a gun, ask him if he's willing to personally take it away from you.

Naturally he won't be, he'll want some other guy with a gun to do it for him.

Dave R
January 11, 2003, 01:59 AM
My favorite question to anti's is...

If you are attacked by a criminal who intends to rape/kill you, do you have the right to resist, or do you just have to put up with whatever he wants to do to you?

If you have the right to resist, then what tools do you have the right to use? Fists? Feet? Teeth? Stick? Bat? Knife? Hammer? Shotgun? Handgun?

If you have the right to defend yourself, then what's the problem with having a decent tool to do it with?

And if you don't have the right to defend yourself, that kinda makes things pretty easy for the predators, doesn't it?

Making the sheep more sheep-like does not deter the wolves.

sixgun_symphony
January 11, 2003, 02:07 AM
Tool?

You mean weapon. No reason to hide that fact.

Weapons in the hands of good men are what keeps the bad men in check.

andy
January 11, 2003, 02:34 AM
What bothers me about all this is how many people think this way and their numbers seem to keep growing. Many of them are in the government. :eek:

F=ma
January 11, 2003, 09:41 AM
This guy is an intellectual amoeba, floating in space, eating, defficating.

The acknowledgement of certain rights is what separates us from the animals; the whole concept of "do unto others..." and the ability to enforce/reinforce those rights. Generally, humans know that it is wrong to kill another human, based on the concept of "rights" of another (unlike lesser animals). Self preservation is innate (God- given?) but codifying the techical details requires a concensus.

IOW life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness are innate qualities (God-given?) and, therefore, we as a nation decided to form government/set of laws to protect these basic tenets

Yes, this is a unique "invented" human concept. So is time or mathmatics....sorta. You guys could argue forever that there is no such thing as mathmatics; that although 2 plus 2 equals 4 in any intellectual plain, it is human reasoning and acknowledgement of principals that "makes it so".

As with math, sometimes you have to start with a postulate, an unprovable but self-evident fact, to build on. Will he agree that self preservation is an inalienable right? If so, you can build a case for the 2nd. If not, you might as well part ways.

Do the Chinese have the same rights as us? They should, but in reality they don't. We originally formed a gov't to protect our rights...Yet there has been a gradual, increasing usurpation of these rights that we allowed to occur. As said earlier, the 2nd has two purposes; to allow for self protection and to allow for the continuance of the country. As we want it.

If you enjoyed reading about "An anti told me I don't have any rights." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!