Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Should gun rights come before Human rights?

Posted 10 years ago on June 9, 2013, 2:10 p.m. EST by HCabret (-327)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Should gun rights come before Human rights?

36 Comments

36 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 10 years ago

Of course gun rights come before human rights. Gun companies should have the right to buy as many humans as they want

and I do support the right to arm bears

Any real environmentalist will tell you the truth - the Earth could survive with a trillion guns,
but not with a trillion humans.

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 10 years ago

That's a pretty good statement. Made me laugh. Yep, arm them bears. I also believe in the right to bare arms, since I don't like long sleeve shirts.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

Security guards get an extra dolor an hour for carrying a gun

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 10 years ago

this just reinforces my belief that Americans are put money before basic human dignity

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

A security guard as to get a license

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 10 years ago

So? You don't need a license to own a gun.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

I don't know I don't own a gun I don't want one

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 10 years ago

I dont own or want either, but the us constitution says that it is a Right to own a gun.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

in a state militia

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 10 years ago

Dc vs Heller says that anyone can own a gun.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

I figure the forth had that sort of errata

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 10 years ago

??? Are you say it's an "either or or"? answer. The only relationship between your two options is that in some cases gun rights support human rights. But overall they're not related.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 10 years ago

Property rights are independent of Human rights.

[-] -1 points by TheRoot (305) from New York, NY 10 years ago

Huh?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 10 years ago

You can't own another human....

[-] -1 points by TheRoot (305) from New York, NY 10 years ago

Oh, I understand. In other words, owning another person is inhuman because it forcibly denies the slave his right to his life and to his property.

[-] -1 points by TheRoot (305) from New York, NY 10 years ago

Your point?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

You're a cultist.

Or was I supposed to have forgotten?

I didn't.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/for-clear-and-irrefutable-directions-to-a-better-l/

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 10 years ago

Uh, YAH.....

Are you in favor of slavery?

[-] -1 points by TheRoot (305) from New York, NY 10 years ago

nfw

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 10 years ago

I dunno, Narley. Seems to me the right to keep and bear arms IS a human right. There is no either or to it. Stupid question is this thread's premise.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Narley (272) 10 years ago

Yep, a human right.

[-] 0 points by gameon (-51) 10 years ago

Well, look who posted the thread.

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 10 years ago

Is the poster another bensdad/wsmith/ericweiss/shoes puppet?

[-] 0 points by gameon (-51) 10 years ago

along those lines but dumber than dumb.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 10 years ago

Better dumb that whatever you are. ;)

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 10 years ago

I'm not sure I understand the question. Obviously everything that exists in our world, that is seen through our eyes, that the mind interprets as differentiation, meaning not of oneself, since we label ourselves collectively as "human," is a human concept and therefore both human and humane. We agree on certain precepts: a rock is a rock, a table is a table, a bunny is cute little furry creature. We agree for communicative purpose that these physical phenomenon which enter our sensory perception are universals, non-subjective, and we therefore assign them some standard nomenclature, a noun. And yet although all are human creations, the result of sensory perception, we generally do not attach an adjective to state, for example, that this is a human rock or a human table or a human bunny. I see the phrase "human rights" then as a somewhat rhetorical statement - all "rights" are human. And it is a statement in that it implies that some other, which this adjective serves to differentiate as non-human, has "rights." Rights as a negotiated item, the force-law of an idea, or ideal, that the compassion of some for other creatures trumps the lessened compassion of others, as "animal rights." But does the bunny really have rights? Of course not, this is the right of some of compassion trumping the right of others. Is it really a right? Again, of course not, since a right must be agreed upon collectively, more or less unanimously. And animal rights, although perhaps an ideal shared by many, perhaps even by a majority, are not a fully agreed upon; it is a matter of some contention. Can a right exist if not an ideal shared by all? Well, perhaps; perhaps it can be force-lawed if those with the ability to force law, who maintain the law, agree. But what guarantor then of our rights? And what is this thing of "human rights"? To what do you refer?

The right to life is an American ideal; many past cultures in an effort to appease their Gods have immediately snuffed the life of the newborn. And yet even in America which has declared this ideal a "right," the right to life is an issue often hotly contested.

The word "molested" was common to the colonial vernacular; the right to live one's life unmolested was something they believed worthy of defense. Many who participated in the French and Indian War, the Seven Year War, were molested, abused in rather extreme form by their British counterparts which generated tremendous animosity. Forced to entertain the presence of others at the time of the Rev, forced to quarter the militaristic arm of the British, colonials were often molested in their churches, in their homes, and in the streets. And in fact, Americans were molested for decades, for generations, following the Rev as well.

The right to live one's life unmolested is an ideal Americans feel worthy of defense; perhaps it is more accurate to say that is an ideal that all humans feel worthy of defense. But the "right" of such luxury, to live unmolested, to defend oneself against those who would carelessly molest us, and militarily oppress us, without concern to even censure, was the result of actual life experience. And so we are a Nation of Law - a nation of dispassionate, monocratic, non-arbitrary, and if just, non-capricious law - and we are empowered to defend ourselves.

The right to live unmolested, is this the "human rights" to which you refer? How do we extend this right to others in our world if we ourselves are not empowered to defend ourselves? What guarantor of a "right" without the ability of defense?

There is more, too. Because we recognize the right of all to possessions, the right to be secure in one's possessions, to be secure in one's property, as the right of possession. Meaning, as Ted Nugent said, "You can't touch this." And a firearm, much like a prized teapot, which itself can inflict harm, is a possession. It's a teapot, an "arm" that we can "bear" (and there are records of colonial women bearing a teapot); it is not colonial artillery and it is not a modern day W of MD. The Fed can't touch this possession, or any possession, any more than it can touch our bank accounts for a failure to purchase that possession. If the present trend continues in the violation of our rights, some future administration - mark my words - will force ALL to purchase firearms, and should you fail to do so, you WILL BE TAXED. Because that is the present state of our "rights" under this administration. How do we explain this to people who have no concept, or care, of "rights"?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 10 years ago

All I have to say is that I have Right not to molested by someone with a gun. I have the right to not fear for my life at school. I have the right to not be afraid I'm gonna be shot because some moron cares more about his/her gun than the dignity of other people.

The right to life is not only an ideal, but is codified law. The 14th amendment says that no one may take my life without due process of law.

I have the Right not to own a gun and the right speak out against pro-2nd amendment/murder advocates.

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 10 years ago

Correct, you have the right not to own a gun. But you don’t have the right to not be afraid of being shot. You being afraid is an emotion, not a right. Your emotional reaction (fear) has nothing to do with someone else’s right to legally own or carry a gun.

I agree with you on right to life. I carry a gun to prevent any attempt violate my right to life. It’s none of my business whether you own a gun or not; just as it’s none of your business if do.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 10 years ago

I dont have the right to be afraid of being shot? where does it say that in the constitution?

I think you should be able to carry a gun, but I have the right to avoid and ignore you at all times.

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 10 years ago

Your original statement was: "I have the right to not fear for my life at school. I have the right to not be afraid" The "not" is the keyword. In truth you don't have a right to not be afraid.

However, you are correct, you have the right ti not own a gun and to avoid those who do. The irony is since most places require a gun to be concealed, you don't know who is carrying a gun.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 10 years ago

If you have the constitutional (and some would say God given) right to bear a gun, then why conceal it in the first place?

Plaxico Burress anyone?

Youll be the first to know if you have gun down your pants.....

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 10 years ago

I wish everyone believed like you. Open carry is illegal in most places. I wish it was legal. I'd much rather open carry than conceal carry. But the law insists I keep my gun concealed.

It's often uncomfortable and hard to hide a gun on your person, especially during the summer. That's why these damn small pocket pistols are so popular. On the other hand if open carry were legal I suspect people would start carrying big ass hand cannons, like a .Harry Callahan's .44 mag.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 10 years ago

I'd much rather know who does or doesn't have a gun. Seems to me that concealed carry aids the criminals.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 10 years ago

While you are busy in your right to be unmolested and your right not to fear the loss of your life and in the right to due process, others are very busy at this very moment in the premeditated effort to attempt the violation of your rights.

You have the right to speak, even the right to pusillanimously defer to those who molest you, but you do not have the right - you are not legally empowered with the ability - to empower others to take firearms.

The right to take life is also codified in law. The right of defense, as justifiable murder, descends to us via the Puritan. And so does this: "If you are not with us, you are against us."

And it would appear to me, that this government is definitely against us. In the minds of many, the NRA now serves as de facto government. Because it holds to the principle of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And its presence center stage as the ability to influence has definite implications for the future of not only American government, but governance of the entire western world.