WalkingWolf
Regular Member
I did, I gave you the word of God. As far as a Atheist all people have god given rights even if they are heathens.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
How many gun owners support 'Universal Background Checks?'
- Thread starter stealthyeliminator
- Start date
I did, I gave you the word of God. As far as a Atheist all people have god given rights even if they are heathens.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Wrong! Stealing infringes on property rights.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Society is made up of Men...and Women. So, the notion of Inherent Right to Live is a Modern Notion? Basically, what you're stating then, is, an individual does not have the Inherent Right to Live until it is established the individual (or Society) has the Inherent Right to Live.
It would not be assigned to just Whomever, it would be assigned to those who are Alive.
No, we weren't born with the Inherent Right to Live since 'day one.'--whatever day that may have been...I'm sure it's a Biblical reference by you. You can claim that it has been the case since 'day one,' but the wheels get-a spinning in my dome when individuals, such as in your case, begin asserting what IS, and IS NOT the case since 'day one.'
No, we do not have an Inherent Right to own a firearm, necessarily, because we have an Inherent Right to Live because we are Alive. Self-defense, and the Inherent Right for an Alive person to Live are not necessarily, albeit Logically, True.
Primus
Regular Member
Where is the word? You just threw "they are God given". That's all. So your in violation of rule 5(i believe). Your throwing a "fact" without a cite.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Thank you for clearing that up. I agree with you, Alive individuals do not have the Inherent Right to Live. I knew we would agree on something...eventually.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Absolutely not! Just tossing in my vote
Edit: Not that it's up for vote, I was using that as a figure of speech.
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
If people had the god given right to live, nobody would die. There is no god given right to health care, there is a god given right to self defense and those tools for that right.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Doesn't follow, sorry.
She confuses living with right to self defense. There is no right to life, or as I stated we all would be immortal. Sooner or later we all have to die, it is not the choice of some thug when that should be. That is in our and God's hand.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
You have a right to life in that you have rightful ownership of yourself and someone interfering with "your life" is an infringement upon that ownership.
Edit: didn't see that /\ post before I posted. I think we agree and are just using different terminology.
Edit: didn't see that /\ post before I posted. I think we agree and are just using different terminology.
Last edited:
Primus
Regular Member
I'm basically saying yes the concept of a right to live is a modern one. How did cave men express this right if they couldn't speak? Once they spoke, how did they write it down without language? Also, I doubt the nomadic tribes believed in these rights since they pretty much lived by the club, sword, etc. Remember all the stories we get of raping and pillaging? They didn't even have basic RULES about killing, never mind a respect for life. It wasn't until society evolved to a point where someone sat down and said "you can't attack me and kill me for no reason, I have a right to live!". It was then passed down. I'm certain that if you look it up, you can find when that concept started, I believe it was the Greeks, Roman Philosophers. I may be wrong.
I'm not implying it's assigned to you at a certain date. I'm saying that there wasn't a right before it was created by man. On whatever date you want to pick. Some guys say God gave it to us. Ok. So why did NO ONE follow that right. I say no one because there used to be slaves that you would throw into a pit with lions. So obviously nobody cared about the right to live then. It was AFTER all the horrific things that people (men and women) used to do to eachother had passed, that we decided to respect rights.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Agreed!
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
OK, so, Alive persons have the Inherent Right to Live, and shoot someone to preserve that Inherent Right, but they don't have the Inherent Right to steal food to preserve their Inherent Right to Live?
I wasn't talking about heathcare.
If people had the God given Right to Live, people would not necessarily have the Right to not die; nowhere in this were we talking about Eternal Life.
Primus
Regular Member
Wait. Your saying there's no right to life? What? Can you list the "rights" that God gave you then? I'm confused on your position now.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
I used health care as a example you would appreciate. You are still confusing life with self defense. Stealing food is stealing food, and lazy.
Primus
Regular Member
The concept is that your right to ------ (insert cool right) can't impose or conflict with someone elses right. They used food as an example. By you stealing food to feed your right to live, you are infringing upon their right to have said food. It's the good old "which right is more important" game.
For example, some people say they have a right to be in a public place and not be scared by visible firearms. We in turn say we have the right to defense. So who's right wins? Ours usually.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Your right to life is a negative right, not a positive right. Your right obligates inaction of others in that they may not interfere, but it does not obligate action of others in that they must support your life. You are not justified in using force against another (stealing) in order to support your life against natural forces (starvation) which are not caused by that individual which you are using force against.
Last edited:
Primus
Regular Member
Must say, well said.
But we keep throwing around the word "right" again. I know some guys went atomic about the right/privilege thing. Also, you can steal WITHOUT force. It's called Larceny. But who says you can't steal from someone (without force). Who says I can't walk into your house and steal your tv? It's not used to support your life. It's for enjoyment. You may say "property rights". Cite. Where do the property rights come from? And if I understand the position correctly, wouldn't it a be a privlege to have the tv, not a right?
Sure, as long as its not stealing from another human as doing so would infringe upon the other person's rights.