"Rights as absolutes is a nice, philosophically neat idea that is very appealing. And I think that you can hold rights as absolutes right up to the point that you allow another living breathing human being onto your desert island. After that, its all about which restrictions are proper and which are not."
No, it's not - it's a definitive line in the sand.
Your rights ARE absolute.
You (must I continually repeat myself?) DO[/I] have absolute rights.
(Again) But, you (I) never had the right to violate anothers' - AND, this is the whole crux here, folks.
You have your rights, while, you don't, never did, have the "right" to violate anothers' & that's the whole argument/discussion-point, etc. - yada. & a thing that is sadly lacking in the understanding of those who say we don't.
We never, ever had the right to violate anothers' & none of us "rational anarchists" are saying that we ever did.
My right to life, property, existence, does not mean that I have this in exclusion to your own self-same rights. I recognize those & am of free-will to allow it - zero, zip, restriction - you may do as you wish as long as you don't violate my own rights.
What, pray tell, is so difficult about this?
This isn't "utopia," it isn't anything radical, it is merely what this country was founded on - "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness."
Show me where this basic premise is flawed - the "basic premise," folks. That some would bastardise it, I can't argue, but the basic premise remains.
"Over and over again, the 2nd amendment absolutists rant on and on from the safety of their little cyber-spaces and DO NOTHING to support their positions. Walk down the sreets with your belt feds boys, or dont you have the courage of your convictions...???"
I object, [U]in the strongest terms to WildAlsaska's wording here & request immediate moderation.
"Over & over again" (implying that we are subject to a restriction to our own views & should be restrained to a certain limitation based on his own (WA's) level of frustration - that we should be limited on a certain number of posts, while he is allowed his own continous contradictions),
"Second Amendement absolutists rant" is subject to an unreasonable attempt to use "inflamatory verbage" & "from the safety of their little cyber-spaces" entails a belittling of what each of us does - we are all of "cyber-sapce" while communicating on the internet & "while we do nothing to support their positions," while supporting our own view of the second, is simply ludicrous.
(Some) We do, we have.
Personally, I am the positional founder of the National Tyranny Response Team, I am the Colorado Second Amendemnet Sisters Governmental Affairs & Legislative Director, I do research for the furtherance of CO pro-rights legalese/directly associated with RMGO/affiliate of GOA - I put my money where my mouth is, as well as my time & I would counter WA's claim that he has "more to say" than any other who has "done more" to alleviate a curtailment of our rights than most others - not that he has no more of a say than others that likely do "more" -or at least "some."
We all have a right "to say," but his counter that "courage of convictions" is: I must note that under WildAlaska's "what you do for the Second" is sadly .... blank. His listed "conviction under" "whadaya do?" is .... sadly "I don't don't do jack." - so much for eiher updatig his profile, or his reality check for what he does to further your 2nd amendment furtherance.
Some walk the walk - some just talk whatever yammering & think they have any reason to yak it up & say they have a play in this battle.
Certainly, WA has an opinion, no question, & is gladly welcome, but to have him assume that he (through implication) has anything "involved" is silly. His own profile says he has done nothing - other than "yak it up" on the 'net he disdains.
He's done nothing to assist in your furtherance of the second, has an opinion on "rights" & your second, but has done absolutely nothing to further any of 'em ... merely a yammer ....
FWIW.
Granted, I'll grant him everything he's said & will just disagree.
BTW, just a disagreement, not a personal attack, & merely an observation of those who'd take the time to make mention of things they'd never have a clue reagards of some so
Whatever.mething they never actually participoated in .....
