Re: The Need Of Guns

"Joe Steel" <NoSpam@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns990FA52AD7B36aa10021highstreamnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"ubermutant" <webmasta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:PpOdnTku6I2834DbnZ2dnUVZ_uGjnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx:

"Joe Steel" <NoSpam@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

A right is best understood not so much as the capacity to do
something but as the capacity to overcome an obstacle to doing it.
An unrecognized right, then, is nothing but an opinion; it has no
value in overcoming resistance to the act.

Spoken like a true apostle of the new secularism.

A RIGHT is something inherent you have, an attribute you possess by
virtue of being a human being, no less a part of you than your DNA.
It has NOTHING to do with your capacity to overcome obstacles toward
its exercise. Are you suggesting the 60-odd millions of Russians
murdered by the communists had no right to live, as they were unable
to overcome the 'obstacles' in pursuit thereof? Would you suggest a
thief who steals a car, overcoming obstacles like steering wheel
locks, has a right to it?

Once again, a right exists regardless of whether someone or other
recognizes it, that is the whole point and what differentiates a right
from a privilege.

But of course, to understand this one needs to accept that there is a
higher authority than government. This apparently, you are simply
unable to grasp. Don't feel bad you have lots of company.

b.




You're confusing interests and rights.

As I said. A true believer.

Indeed, everyone has inherent interests. Some are universal and
fundamental and we think of these as natural "rights" but they're not.
No right exists unless it is codified.

Bull***. Rights exists whether they are recognized or not, just as reality
exists whether Liberals recognize it or not.

Life was among the interests of the dead Russians. They had no right to
life, though, because their political system condemned them to death.
Conceptually, this is not much different from the predicament of a
condemned criminal. He would like to live but his political system will
not protect his life so the State may kill him.

I said that to be absurd. Apparently you really believe it. It's worse
than I thought.

Like anyone who appreciates material possessions, the thief has an
interest in the auto. The community, however, does not protect the
acqusition by theft of autos as they do by purchase. Law-abiding
citizens who purchase autos such as the one the thief covets are
protected by a property right. The may acquire and enjoy the property to
the exclusion of all other persons without fear of being lawfully
deprived of it. The thief, however, has no such expectation. His
attempts to acquire and enjoy the vehicle will be opposed by the
community.

Indeed. It IS worse than I thought. You actually buy into this malarky.
Did you get into some bad drugs, or are you just a current by-product of the
public education industry?

--
========================================

NRA Patron, GSSA Life, recovering Republican
If you're not catching flak, you're not over the target.
========================================


.

Quantcast