Florida has started Confication..Good!

[stanc]

This is where we will agree to disagree.

With what do you disagree?
Does the Second Amendment state that it is meant to counter government power?
Does the Second Amendment note any purpose for militias other than state security?
Doesn't the Constitution provide for calling out the militia to suppress insurrections?
Does either the Constitution or the Second Amendment say anything about using the militia to conduct insurrections?
If the Second Amendment was not meant to ensure that military small arms would be available to members of organized State militias, why does it have the militia clause?

1. This is where the discussion between the religion of intelligent design or atheism occurs, which is not appropriate for this forum.

Intelligent design versus atheism is not relevant to the discussion. The issue is the unsubstantiated claim that rights come from God.

Our founders did believe:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their "Creator" with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Correction: That's what they said in a propaganda statement meant to try to ward off other European monarchies from allying with the British king in his effort to quell the American rebellion.

What the Founders actually believed was: that they had the right to invade a continent populated by other people, and kill any who resisted the invasion, depriving them of the supposed right to life; that they had the right to own, buy, and sell black people, depriving them of the supposed right to liberty; that white women were not intellectually equal to white men, as women were denied the right to vote in all states but one.

They plainly expressed that all rights come from a creator,not the state as to be self-evident.

Yeah. They said those were "self-evident truths" just so that they wouldn't have to defend the claims. In actuality, the claims are not self-evident, and there is no proof that they are truths. If there were proof, you would be able to cite the document(s) written by God wherein he specifies what rights he gave us.

2. I agree, but there are many other natural rights like the need for self defense, learning, understanding, discovery, family, caring, survival, etc.

You're conflating needs and wants with rights. As best I can tell, there is only the one "natural right" (and I'm not sure that "right" is the best term to describe it).

[stanc]

The Founders' intent [in writing the Constitution] was to create a government...

Yeah, that's basically what I said.

I take it you don't believe in Freewill.

Null statement/question. I don't operate on belief.

If you can't extend enough goodwill to perform a simple intellectual exercise, then any attempt at a conversation with you is a waste of time.

Meh. Attempting to have a discussion based on faulty logic and incorrect facts is a waste of time. However, I'll play.

Okay, assume "rights" actually exist and are unalienable. A cop mistakes the cellphone in your hand for a gun, and shoots you dead. Do you still have an unalienable right to life?

You've never actually read Washington's or Jefferson's thoughts on slavery have you? As a young idealist politician Jefferson actually fought against slavery. Washington wanted to move from a slave labor to a paid labor business model. Why didn't they just free their slaves and set an example? The colonial laws on inheritance made this very complicated and almost impossible.

Excuses, excuses. In any case, Washington and Jefferson were not the only Founders. There were many more.

The government's Rights come from the Individual, not the other way around. Hence the Constitution's Preamble.

Not relevant. The discussion is about individual rights, which are defined by the government.

What the hell does that have to do with anything. Either the ideas are correct or they're not. Who it comes from is irrelevant.

Where "rights" come from has everything to do with it. If they don't come from an omnipotent God, and they don't exist in Nature, then they're inventions of the human mind, and not unalienable.

They're wrong, but not completely. In order to understand this we have to understand a couple of things. What is government? It's the people. We, Americans, are the U.S. government. Therefore everything the government owns, we the American taxpayers own. And hence our first Right of Life (Property) extends to US property.

That's complete nonsense.

First, "the people" are not the government. The Founders did not trust the people to govern themselves, so they established a representative form of government, not a democracy.

Second, US Government property does not belong to us, a fact that will be quite profoundly -- and rather unpleasantly -- demonstrated to you if you ignore signs like that below.

[montana]

With what do you disagree?
Does the Second Amendment state that it is meant to counter government power?
Does the Second Amendment note any purpose for militias other than state security?
Doesn't the Constitution provide for calling out the militia to suppress insurrections?
Does either the Constitution or the Second Amendment say anything about using the militia to conduct insurrections?
If the Second Amendment was not meant to ensure that military small arms would be available to members of organized State militias, why does it have the militia clause?

We have hashed this over too many times already. I believe what the founders intent and meaning of the 2ndA by what they wrote in the Federalist papers and other periodicals of the time of the creation of our government and you dont. That is why we will agree to disagree.

Intelligent design versus atheism is not relevant to the discussion. The issue is the unsubstantiated claim that rights come from God.


Correction: That's what they said in a propaganda statement meant to try to ward off other European monarchies from allying with the British king in his effort to quell the American rebellion.

What the Founders actually believed was: that they had the right to invade a continent populated by other people, and kill any who resisted the invasion, depriving them of the supposed right to life; that they had the right to own, buy, and sell black people, depriving them of the supposed right to liberty; that white women were not intellectually equal to white men, as women were denied the right to vote in all states but one.

Wow, where to begin lol. They stated our rights are given to us by our creator, not men. How this is an unsubstantiated claim that our rights don't come from God, well I guess you lost me on that conclusion. The fact you believe it was not a truth they believed in and was only a propaganda statement for diplomatic purposes is your opinion and a doozy at that. We will have to agree to disagree on that one too LOL.
Slavery was a very heated and debated subject back then which was settled during the civil war, even though it was not the only or main reason for it. There were whites put into slavery too under indentured servitude. Hell,even the Irish and Catholics were treated as sub human by many. Many Indian tribes, freed blacks had slaves, abused women, practiced torture, rape and even cannibalism. This is another topic not suitable for this forum, but you are correct when all people were not included with those God given rights when our nation was founded. Not all Americans treated women, blacks or Indians as lessor people. As today, our government does not always treat people as equals, which violates the very basics of the Constitution. This does not lesson the "belief" in it's meaning or merit IMO.

Yeah. They said those were "self-evident truths" just so that they wouldn't have to defend the claims. In actuality, the claims are not self-evident, and there is no proof that they are truths. If there were proof, you would be able to cite the document(s) written by God wherein he specifies what rights he gave us.

They used self evident truths so they wouldn't have to defend the claims??? That is quite a claim of your own
Once again, asking for a written document by God goes beyond the subject matter of this forum. Maybe Indiana Jones will reveal the Ten commandments someday

You're conflating needs and wants with rights. As best I can tell, there is only the one "natural right" (and I'm not sure that "right" is the best term to describe it).

Basic human needs and the ability to pursue them are our rights. When our ability to pursue our basic needs are inhibited by others, then that is a violation of our God given"natural" rights. That is what the founders were trying to accomplish when our nation created limited government, division of power and our Bill Of Rights. Once again, we will agree to disagree.

[JASmith]

OK -- we have another p***ing contest with no end in sight.

We don't we discuss how to protect our rights rather than trying to "prove they don't exist" except at the hands of some faceless bureaucrat?

This constant self ego-stroking does no one any good and, in my view, leads to harm for our cause. The harm arises because one person insists on a particular point of view and must always have the last word even though several very knowledgeable writers have shown his positions be wrong or at least seriously at odds with writings by our founding fathers and their contemporaries.

Let it go!

[stanc]

We have hashed this over too many times already. I believe what the founders intent and meaning of the 2ndA by what they wrote in the Federalist papers and other periodicals of the time of the creation of our government and you dont. That is why we will agree to disagree.

You're evading my questions. But that's understandable, since honest answers would prove somewhat awkward for your position.

I'll try another tack, though: Surely the Founders were sufficiently intelligent and educated to have said what they meant in the Constitution and the Second Amendment, instead of omitting rather important specifics?

Wow, where to begin lol. They stated our rights are given to us by our creator, not men. How this is an unsubstantiated claim that our rights don't come from God, well I guess you lost me on that conclusion.

You seem to have misread what I wrote. I said that the claim our rights come from God is unsubstantiated. It is a belief, not a proven fact.

Once again, asking for a written document by God goes beyond the subject matter of this forum.

Why? Citing references for other claims is expected. If you're going to claim that God is the source of our rights, you should be able to cite the document(s) wherein he listed said rights.

[stanc]

We don't we discuss how to protect our rights...?

That's been tried before. Makes for a very short thread, since about the only ideas anybody posts are the old standards like vote and write letters.

This constant self ego-stroking does no one any good and, in my view, leads to harm for our cause. The harm arises because one person insists on a particular point of view and must always have the last word even though several very knowledgeable writers have shown his positions be wrong or at least seriously at odds with writings by our founding fathers and their contemporaries.

At odds with some of the Founders' writings, perhaps, but quite consistent with what is written in the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

[montana]

You're evading my questions. But that's understandable, since honest answers would prove somewhat awkward for your position.

I'll try another tack, though: Surely the Founders were sufficiently intelligent and educated to have said what they meant in the Constitution and the Second Amendment, instead of omitting rather important specifics?





You seem to have misread what I wrote. I said that the claim our rights come from God is unsubstantiated. It is a belief, not a proven fact.


Why? Citing references for other claims is expected. If you're going to claim that God is the source of our rights, you should be able to cite the document(s) wherein he listed said rights.

Stan, I have explained belief, God , etc, while trying to stay "some what" on subject. I'm going to have to agree with JASmith, Corey and others on this subject and let it go. What is self-evident to others is obviously not to you.

[stanc]

Stan, I have explained belief, God , etc, while trying to stay "some what" on subject.

Trouble is, I did not need to have belief, God, etc, explained to me. Most of my questions were ignored completely.
I normally try to answer questions posed to me, but apparently it's too much to expect the same respect in return.

[NugginFutz]

Would one of the mods please just combine the last few 2A threads and save the rest of us the trouble of sorting through this? It appears that, save for the title, they all are clones of one-another.

Cory, Montana, et al...

Please recall that Stan has an abundance of time on his hands, due to his present (and foreseeable) circumstances. His tag line belies his growing cynicism, from which a large number of his posts originate. He has gone well beyond playing the role of "Devil's advocate". You would all be well advised to consider that, unless and until, you can establish a common frame of reference, further discussion will continue to be circular in nature. It should be clear to all that there are vastly different world-views in play.

[bwaites]

The 2A forum has markedly more leeway for discussion than others here on the Grendel Forum. I don’t see any real reason to narrow the discussion or combine threads. So long as it is kept civil, I’m fine. No one has an obligation to read through these threads, so they appear fine to me. NugginFutz is entirely correct in his assessment above re: Stan. While he is a long time Grendel writer (some of the earliest Grendel articles were his), arguing 1A and 2A points is a sport for him.

[cory]

JASmith, NugginFutz Amen! Stanc nothing anymore personal than it has to be, but I'm done with having this conversation with you.

However, I believe this is an important and very beneficial conversation to have with anyone willing to have it in good faith. If for no other reason than this. We can not protect what we do not understand.

[stanc]

Cory, Montana, et al...

Please recall that Stan has an abundance of time on his hands, due to his present (and foreseeable) circumstances.

Is that relevant?

His tag line belies his growing cynicism, from which a large number of his posts originate.

Not cynicism. Realism.

He has gone well beyond playing the role of "Devil's advocate".

Um, I've never played Devil's advocate.

You would all be well advised to consider that, unless and until, you can establish a common frame of reference, further discussion will continue to be circular in nature. It should be clear to all that there are vastly different world-views in play.

Yup. For one, idealism versus realism. For another, what some here believe the Founders meant versus what the author of the Second Amendment actually wrote.

[stanc]

While [Stan] is a long time Grendel writer (some of the earliest Grendel articles were his), arguing 1A and 2A points is a sport for him.

That's actually pretty close to the truth, Bill. Although I view it more as exercise for the mind, to keep my analytical skills honed.

I'd much rather be discussing the combat capability of Grendel in the Military forum, but sadly those threads died out years ago.

[stanc]

JASmith, NugginFutz Amen! Stanc nothing anymore personal than it has to be, but I'm done with having this conversation with you.

That's kinda rude, especially after I did the "intellectual exercise" that you asked me to do.

However, I believe this is an important and very beneficial conversation to have with anyone willing to have it in good faith. If for no other reason than this. We can not protect what we do not understand.

I agree.

[NugginFutz]

The 2A forum has markedly more leeway for discussion than others here on the Grendel Forum. I don’t see any real reason to narrow the discussion or combine threads. So long as it is kept civil, I’m fine. No one has an obligation to read through these threads, so they appear fine to me.

Bill - I was half serious, half facetious about the proposed thread merger. I truly did not believe the stockholders would have approved. This was spoken tongue in cheek. Forgive me for omitting the obligatory emoticon.

Is that relevant?

It is, in that I'm warning the potentially uninformed of the differential in time available to spend on these discussions.

Not cynicism. Realism.

Spoken like a true cynic.

Um, I've never played Devil's advocate.

Interesting. One a previous occasion, I'd made a similar observation which you appeared to agree with. Perhaps your lack of protest at that time allowed me to continue in my belief of that apparent factual assertion.
#38

Yup. For one, idealism versus realism. For another, what some here believe the Founders meant versus what the author of the Second Amendment actually wrote.

Again, without a common ground, discourse is pointless. You tout your view, while others tout theirs. You say poTATo, I say poTAHTo.
Your assertion that you are a realist, while others are idealists comes off as a bit contemptuous of people of faith. Your proposition that only when God directly hands you a book flies in the face of the faithful. I would think that you would be a bit less intolerant of said people of faith and understand that that was the cornerstone upon which the constitution and its amendments were so clearly laid. That you do not agree with "divine appointment" is irrelevant. The founders did, and that is the premise of the document called the Constitution of the United States.

[stanc]

It is, in that I'm warning the potentially uninformed of the differential in time available to spend on these discussions.

Fair enough. Although the practical time differential isn't nearly as great as it might seem. It can take me an hour to type a post that others could do in 10 minutes.

Spoken like a true cynic.

:p

Interesting. One a previous occasion, I'd made a similar observation which you appeared to agree with. Perhaps your lack of protest at that time allowed me to continue in my belief of that apparent factual assertion.
#38

Yeah, I can see how my lack of protest could've been taken as agreement. My bad.

Your assertion that you are a realist, while others are idealists comes off as a bit contemptuous of people of faith.

An interesting reaction. I didn't even have religious belief in mind when making the idealism/realism comparison.

Your proposition that only when God directly hands you a book flies in the face of the faithful. I would think that you would be a bit less intolerant of said people of faith and understand that that was the cornerstone upon which the constitution and its amendments were so clearly laid. That you do not agree with "divine appointment" is irrelevant.

I'm not at all intolerant of people of faith. I'm intolerant of a lack of logical thought.

Since there is obviously no document written by God in which he lists the rights that the Founders and some folks here claim he gave us, who determines what are (or are not) "God given" rights? And on what basis is the determination made? Feelings? Intuition? Guessing? What?

Remember, European kings used to claim that they had the "God given" right to do as they pleased. This is no different: People claiming rights supposedly given by God, but offering no proof that God did any such thing.

[JASmith]

The point about time availability is well taken -- Stan has a lot of time to play his games and, to the extent we participate, he is doing them well.

Nonetheless, these are dangerous games and played to entertain one person but continue to misinform those who have not wandered through this morass before. The rest of us are not particularly entertained by endless repetitions of the same theme by just one individual. We respond because the garbage MUST be refuted.

I re-emphasise my comment from an earlier thread -- Every 2A thread should be locked after the 20th post, and really needs to be closed by the 50th. The history is that no new information is posted starting somewhere between these two points.

Leaving them open longer only invites trolling behavior.

[montana]

Trouble is, I did not need to have belief, God, etc, explained to me. Most of my questions were ignored completely.
I normally try to answer questions posed to me, but apparently it's too much to expect the same respect in return.

Stan, I tried to answer your questions as best as I could without re-hashing old arguments or going off topic. I never tried to be disrespectful to you and if it came across that way, I apologize. I'm not an academic scholar,"just ask my wife" and sometimes have a difficult time expressing my thoughts. I hope you will never think I have been intentionally rude or disrespectful to you, as that has never been my intention.

[NugginFutz]

Since there is obviously no document written by God in which he lists the rights that the Founders and some folks here claim he gave us, who determines what are (or are not) "God given" rights?

Obvious to whom? There is no shortage, Stan, of people who will stand toe to toe with you or anyone else who says different, and state unequivocally that there are, indeed, documents written by God. Any attempt by you to set the criteria establishing what is considered obvious makes no difference to them, any more than their position alters yours.

You have stated what it would take to convince you. The faithful are already convinced. (It is, of course, far easier to believe in something handed directly to you than it is to take things on faith, alone.)

Remember, European kings used to claim that they had the "God given" right to do as they pleased. This is no different: People claiming rights supposedly given by God, but offering no proof that God did any such thing.

The difference here, Stan, is that the Bill of Rights limits the government from claiming any such position, and reaffirms the rights of the people. Quite a different argument.

[stanc]

Stan, I tried to answer your questions as best as I could without re-hashing old arguments or going off topic. I never tried to be disrespectful to you and if it came across that way, I apologize. I'm not an academic scholar,"just ask my wife" and sometimes have a difficult time expressing my thoughts. I hope you will never think I have been intentionally rude or disrespectful to you, as that has never been my intention.

Tom, I do not think you have ever been intentionally disrespectful, but in post #41, I asked you six direct questions, four of which required a simple "Yes" or "No" answer. You answered only the very first question, and ignored the rest.

There is only one person here who is intentionally and repeatedly disrespectful, referring to my posts as garbage, trolling, self ego-stroking, playing games to entertain myself, etc.