And so it begins in the U.S.

[scrapper]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Scrapper...I am curious where you think human rights originate and which rights do you think humans are entitled to? Are they inherent in being, or are they granted to us by other humans?

This is a most interesting comment, the answer of course is quite simple, my interpretation is that your rights are a direct result and a product of the society in which you chose to live.

If of course you do not have a choice of the society in which you live you are being denied a human right as defined by the United nations.

Maybe you can enlighten us with an answer to your own question where do you think human rights originate, I would be interested in your answer, fact is you ask this question to 100 people you may get 100 answers....and guess what...... none of them will be wrong it's simply the individals interpretation. A person that lives in Iran will have a different response than one who lives in North Korea and the person who lives in Brazil will have a diferent INTERPRETATION than the other two. You have to determine on what standard you are measuring the responses.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by Hagalaz

You would like to see 3000+ fps rifles restricted/prohibited because you don't like them? So what about those people who do like them? You would see fit to take a type of rifle away from everyone because its not what you like?

Ha, ha! You must not have read my other posts and associated them with my handle. It's a little play on what I have a hunch Scrapper has in his safe or closet.

I just wanted to see how he'd react to moderate gun control when it affects him. I mean really, who needs a sniper rifle like that?

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by scrapper

This is a most interesting comment, the answer of course is quite simple, my interpretation is that your rights are a direct result and a product of the society in which you chose to live.

If of course you do not have a choice of the society in which you live you are being denied a human right as defined by the United nations.

Maybe you can enlighten us with an answer to your own question where do you think human rights originate, I would be interested in your answer, fact is you ask this question to 100 people you may get 100 answers....and guess what...... none of them will be wrong it's simply the individals interpretation. A person that lives in Iran will have a different response than one who lives in North Korea and the person who lives in Brazil will have a diferent INTERPRETATION than the other two. You have to determine on what standard you are measuring the responses.

So, logically if you are born into a society in which people are bought, sold and destroyed like so much cheap chatel; it's merely that your particular rights kind of suck. Oh well, too bad.

You're following a scary thought process here, turn back! Do not enter! Abandon hope, all that continue down this path!

[Hagalaz]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Ha, ha! You must not have read my other posts and associated them with my handle. It's a little play on what I have a hunch Scrapper has in his safe or closet.

I just wanted to see how he'd react to moderate gun control when it affects him. I mean really, who needs a sniper rifle like that?

Ah, okay. I get ya'.

Thanks for answering.

[scrapper]

Originally Posted by Hagalaz

You would like to see 3000+ fps rifles restricted/prohibited because you don't like them? So what about those people who do like them? You would see fit to take a type of rifle away from everyone because its not what you like?

Good one.

[scrapper]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Ha, ha! You must not have read my other posts and associated them with my handle. It's a little play on what I have a hunch Scrapper has in his safe or closet.

I just wanted to see how he'd react to moderate gun control when it affects him. I mean really, who needs a sniper rifle like that?

You are right I have guns that exceed your limit, but guess what if that was your opinion I am not going to call you a Hitler supporter, I am just going to accept your right to your opinion....maybe you could consider extending the same courtesy.

So...how did I do...did you get the response you hoped for.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by scrapper

You are right I have guns that exceed your limit, but guess what if that was your opinion I am not going to call you a Hitler supporter, I am just going to accept your right to your opinion....maybe you could consider extending the same courtesy.

So...how did I do...did you get the response you hoped for.

Only if you're ok with turning them in! You see, to the urbanite Joe Metrocity, who thinks tofu is a food group, what I've described is a very powerful, excessively dangerous weapon. Not suitable for some hick in a too-tall pick-up truck.

Why do you need a .270 model 70 with some kind of tactical scope, when dear old Grand Dad did it with an antique 30-30?

Are you starting to see where freely giving up guns ends up? End result? Britain, Australia, Jamaica, Mexico, etc.

BTW, Jamaica has a horrendous murder rate, with nearly no citizen owned guns. And Mexico is in dire need of a huge shipment of scary black guns. If only Big Dad Government would trust them... The citizens would take care of the drug cartels. Not eliminate them entirely, but the beheading and disemboweling of reporters and anyone who dares speak out would go down considerably.

And you know what? Most of those guns would scarcely need to see daylight, to realize that benefit.

Just wondering if anyone actually feels safer now, than they did back in the era that actually saw fully automatic guns available? We don't seem to be getting our money's worth with this gun control idea.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by scrapper

This is a most interesting comment, the answer of course is quite simple, my interpretation is that your rights are a direct result and a product of the society in which you chose to live.

If of course you do not have a choice of the society in which you live you are being denied a human right as defined by the United nations.

Maybe you can enlighten us with an answer to your own question where do you think human rights originate, I would be interested in your answer, fact is you ask this question to 100 people you may get 100 answers....and guess what...... none of them will be wrong it's simply the individals interpretation. A person that lives in Iran will have a different response than one who lives in North Korea and the person who lives in Brazil will have a diferent INTERPRETATION than the other two. You have to determine on what standard you are measuring the responses.

Interesting indeed. I suspected that you felt that humans rights originated and were granted by "others" aka government. Of course you are wrong.

A humans right to life for example is self evident. That you would suggest that my right to protect my own life is dependent on permission from the government and exists at their whim is non-sensical. It goes completely against nature.

Certain unalienable rights are inherent and are given. Read the declaration of independence for example. or many other discussions on the topic.
http://www.unalienable.com/


Using your argument, a population could decide for example that if 5 people needed the organs of one healthy person to live, that it would be acceptable to use the organs of the healthy person to make the other 5 healthy. The rights of that person are superceded by the maximum benefit of society as a whole.

There are those of course that share your argument...Karl Marx for example:
"Of recent origin is the Economic Theory of Rights and it finds its inspiration in the teaching of Karl Marx. It rejects the concept of natural and inalienable rights as also various other theories enunciated from time to time as an explanation of the nature of rights.

Marx’s thesis is simple and to a certain extent convincing too. He regards the State as a coercive agency to uphold the particular type of social organisation and law is a tool of the State that perpetuates and safeguards the interests of the dominant group in the society." fr http://www.shareyouressays.com/89061...f-rights-essay

Soviet concept of human rights was different from conceptions prevalent in the West. According to Western legal theory, "it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government", whereas Soviet law declared that state is the source of human rights. Therefore, Soviet legal system regarded law as an arm of politics and courts as agencies of the government. Extensive extra-judiciary powers were given to the Soviet secret police agencies. The regime abolished Western rule of law, civil liberties, protection of law and guarantees of property. According to Vladimir Lenin, the purpose of socialist courts was "not to eliminate terror ... but to substantiate it and legitimize in principle".[ fr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_human_rights


Human rights, (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness) are rights every human is born with. They are unalienable in that they cannot be bartered away, or traded. Men form governments for the purpose of protecting these rights, not for the purpose of deriving them.

"Genuine politics cannot risk a step without first having demonstrated its fidelity to morality, and even though politics may justly be called a difficult art, its combination with morality is no art at all; for morality slices in two the knot which others flounder in the face of once they fall into squabbling. Human rights must be kept whole, no matter what that may cost the powers that be. In this case there must be no compromise, no median worked out between pragmatically oriented rights (between rights and utilitarianism)–all politics must bend its knee before human rights, and only in this fashion may politics ever aspire to reach the stage where it will illuminate humanity." Immanuel Kant

If you cannot now see where your line of thinking would take society, I would suggest further study on the matter.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Interesting indeed. I suspected that you felt that humans rights originated and were granted by "others" aka government. Of course you are wrong.

A humans right to life for example is self evident. That you would suggest that my right to protect my own life is dependent on permission from the government and exists at their whim is non-sensical. It goes completely against nature.....

Soviet concept of human rights was different from conceptions prevalent in the West. According to Western legal theory, "it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government", whereas Soviet law declared that state is the source of human rights. Therefore, Soviet legal system regarded law as an arm of politics and courts as agencies of the government. Extensive extra-judiciary powers were given to the Soviet secret police agencies. The regime abolished Western rule of law, civil liberties, protection of law and guarantees of property. According to Vladimir Lenin, the purpose of socialist courts was "not to eliminate terror ... but to substantiate it and legitimize in principle".[ fr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_human_rights


Human rights, (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness) are rights every human is born with. They are unalienable in that they cannot be bartered away, or traded. Men form governments for the purpose of protecting these rights, not for the purpose of deriving them.

"Genuine politics cannot risk a step without first having demonstrated its fidelity to morality, and even though politics may justly be called a difficult art, its combination with morality is no art at all; for morality slices in two the knot which others flounder in the face of once they fall into squabbling. Human rights must be kept whole, no matter what that may cost the powers that be. In this case there must be no compromise, no median worked out between pragmatically oriented rights (between rights and utilitarianism)–all politics must bend its knee before human rights, and only in this fashion may politics ever aspire to reach the stage where it will illuminate humanity." Immanuel Kant

If you cannot now see where your line of thinking would take society, I would suggest further study on the matter.

Very good post, Rugatika.

I think it is easier to now better understand the source of the Gun Zombie drive for gun control. It's not about guns. It is about control. They want it; they believe they should have it and they believe that they know what is best for the rest of us.

Conservative gun owners believe, as we are discussing, the human rights are the (God-given) rights I was born with. I neither seek nor do I require any permission or licence from government to hold those rights. The most basic human right is the right to defend my life and the lives or my family. That right is useless if I am denied the means to exercise it. Calling "911" does not exercise my right of self-defence; it is just the desperate act of someone who is allowed to do nothing else and it can be helpful evidence for the police after they finish chalking the floor.

I wonder if the real reason that most Gun Zombies do not want me to own firearms out of their control, nor certainly carry a pistol, is not that they disagree with my right to self-defence but that they don't trust me. We have been taught to distrust each other, I think. It was/is part of the Progressive tactics. I didn't buy into it but many did. I have seen that erosion of trust in news reports about self-defence stories. I have seen it in our preoccupation with needing expert opinions for everything nowadays. I see it in the changed relationship between citizens and police, in most cases. I see it in the divide-and-conquer politics that Liberals used so successfully for decades. I see it in the derision toward people of faith and people of principle that is so fashionable in the media and universities these days. We are become a nation of groupies who adore elitists and happily hand them our freedom. We are modern pagans.

Originally Posted by scrapper

This is a most interesting comment, the answer of course is quite simple, my interpretation is that your rights are a direct result and a product of the society in which you chose to live.

If of course you do not have a choice of the society in which you live you are being denied a human right as defined by the United nations.

I wonder if you have any idea how brutish those interpretations are?

If you believe that your rights come from government, then you necessarily believe that government can take them away. That is obvious - what is given can be taken away. Since you also believe that membership in a recognized society is required before you can have any human rights, then you believe that members of an unrecognized group, or hermits, have none.

I doubt you realize that those interpretations and beliefs set the stage for an ability to support the worst. If you hear disturbing labels from time to time, I suggest that may be the reason - in some cases anyway.

There is a short book titled: "Discovery of Freedom" by Rose Wilder Lane. Yep, the same lady that wrote the Little House on the Prairie books. Anyway, she was a bit off on her assessment Moorish history, but otherwise that little book contains some profound insights. If you are open-minded about these things, you need to read it. It is not a book that would appear on any university reading list, I think.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Apparently he has written a book called, "Trust me, I'm lying", which lays out exactly how and what they do.
According to him the big media outlets are well aware this is happening and have been for a long time, but since they are simply quoting sources, IE this quest, they are insulated from any repercussions. Until now.

This book would end all that and he claims the big media outlets are furious with him for exposing their dirty little secret.

If true, I could see some very big changes coming.

Thanks, I'll look for it.

For a long time, our MSM has been more interested in selling cornflakes than telling the truth. Titillation and support for the progressive intelligensia is trump. I look forward to reading it.

Big changes are needed, Keg. Changes here as well as big changes in some fundamental attitudes to do with entitlements, work, personal responsibility, achievement....little things like that. If we don't get it done, someone else is going to eat our grandchildren's lunch.

[scrapper]

Those comments on human rights though off topic were certainy good comments. I will most certainly use them to shape my opinioms good information is always an important learning experiance.

We have kinda beat this this horse to death so I am going to exit this discussion In closing I feel it important to offer Rocky a specific apology for my poor maybe even inappropriate choice of words. In hind sight the word extremeist may not of properly communicated my point. I was simply trying to illustrate that there are certainly varying levels of gun enthusiests. So Rocky if my comments in any way offended you I apologize.

My comments are always based on my opinions; while they may differ from yours, while I may not agree with yours, I will always respect that you have the right to your opinion. I may not aggree on what you have to say but it is encumbant apon me to fight to the very end to defend your right to say it..

My only regret is the completely inapropriate comments with respect to Hitler,Stalin, Kiaser and China. I felt the group reponse to that comment could of been a little more difinitive. However I may be more sensitive to the whole Hitler,Nazi issue than the others.

Over and out

[Sneeze]

Originally Posted by scrapper

Your's and my rights are dictated to us by the society in which we chose to live. If you do not like the laws here or you think your constituional rights are a detrement to you ability to protect yourself, the simple solution is to exercise your Right to move to a local that better suits your beliefs.

This is the 2nd most dangerous thing I have ever read on AO.

First of all... tell that to the people that lived in the satellite states of the former Soviet Union. Tell that to the people of North Korea, Darfur, Bosnia. Would you like me to go on?

Sorry boss, MY rights are not dictated to me by the society I live in. They are inalienable, given to me by God, Allah or whatever you want to think. They cannot be taken away, voted away, legislated away, ruled away. These rights are worth fighting and dying for.

I take issue with this argument. Nobody started up a conversation with a sperm and an egg one day and said "You two... if you want to get together and create Sneeze, you better agree to these rules of society". I never agreed to these rules. I never signed up for any of it. Tyranny is very common under the guise of "common good".

It boils my blood when I hear the argument similar to "pay my fair share", "your duty to society", "public safety". I couldn't care less about society, when did I agree to these restrictions? When did I submit to the will of the majority?

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by scrapper

In hind sight the word extremeist may not of properly communicated my point. I was simply trying to illustrate that there are certainly varying levels of gun enthusiests. So Rocky if my comments in any way offended you I apologize.

No problem. I have a thick hide.

You've not said anything I and the rest of us have not heard before. Doesn't make it right, of course.

My comments are always based on my opinions; while they may differ from yours, while I may not agree with yours, I will always respect that you have the right to your opinion.

We are all entitled to hold our own opinions. That's a given. However, we are not entitled to our own facts, our own history or our own truth. The only thing worse than having no opinion is owning the kind of closed mind that never permits changing it.

[lowlife72]

Tongue in cheek......

I only only target shoot (paper & clays). Since there is a grocery store just down the street from me I see absoluteley no need for the cruel and barbaric practice of hunting. It is absolutely not needed and nobody should be allowed to do it. It should be BANNED and all firearms should only be allowed to be used for target shooting.

See how that works?

[scrapper]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

This is the 2nd most dangerous thing I have ever read on AO.

First of all... tell that to the people that lived in the satellite states of the former Soviet Union. Tell that to the people of North Korea, Darfur, Bosnia. Would you like me to go on?

Sorry boss, MY rights are not dictated to me by the society I live in. They are inalienable, given to me by God, Allah or whatever you want to think. They cannot be taken away, voted away, legislated away, ruled away. These rights are worth fighting and dying for.

I take issue with this argument. Nobody started up a conversation with a sperm and an egg one day and said "You two... if you want to get together and create Sneeze, you better agree to these rules of society". I never agreed to these rules. I never signed up for any of it. Tyranny is very common under the guise of "common good".

It boils my blood when I hear the argument similar to "pay my fair share", "your duty to society", "public safety". I couldn't care less about society, when did I agree to these restrictions? When did I submit to the will of the majority?

If my comment was the second scariest, this one has to be the first. May I ask you a few simple questions, how do you feel about the US constitution, how do you feel about the Canadian constitutional rights and freedoms. Do either of these documents mean anything to you at all. Both documents are products of their respective societies. Both documents are designed to prevent tyranny. I am interested in your views, on society and your comment that you couldn't care less about society.

If you couldn't care less about society , how do you view other peoples rights and freedoms, do they have any. I care deeply about society, my right to vote, I abide by all laws even the one's I don't agree with. I have my own opinions but am not so naive as to believe that while the will of the minority is important it cannot be disputed that the will of the majority is what we live by. It seems to me the will of the majority is the cornerstone of democracy.

You certainly have the right to your opinion, I respect that but your comments have raised a few questions in my mind.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by scrapper

If my comment was the second scariest, this one has to be the first. May I ask you a few simple questions, how do you feel about the US constitution, how do you feel about the Canadian constitutional rights and freedoms. Do either of these documents mean anything to you at all. Both documents are products of their respective societies. Both documents are designed to prevent tyranny. I am interested in your views, on society and your comment that you couldn't care less about society.

If you couldn't care less about society , how do you view other peoples rights and freedoms, do they have any. I care deeply about society, my right to vote, I abide by all laws even the one's I don't agree with. I have my own opinions but am not so naive as to believe that while the will of the minority is important it cannot be disputed that the will of the majority is what we live by. It seems to me the will of the majority is the cornerstone of democracy.

You certainly have the right to your opinion, I respect that but your comments have raised a few questions in my mind.

The major differences between the constitution of the USA and the Canadian version, is that the USA constitution has the second amendment, as well as declaring all US citizens equal under the law. The Canadian version has neither, and in fact our laws include legislated racism, and inequality under the law. I have spent the last two weeks in the USA, and am posting this from the USA. What I have noticed over the past two weeks is just how concerned many US citizens are over the direction I which the USA is headed. They are concerned that the current administration is sacrificing individual rights and freedoms, with the excuse that it is for the benefit of society as a whole. They are concerned that the USA is heading in the same direction that Canada has been headed for many years. From what I can see, this will very likely lead to the defeat of the Obama administration. Unfortutunately It may already be too late to save the individual rights and freedoms for Canadians.

[Hagalaz]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Unfortutunately It may already be too late to save the individual rights and freedoms for Canadians.

Which is why Alberta needs to stop being Canadian.

We need to get out of this country as soon as possible.