Because like some have said, this doesn't fit the narrative of the word gun in the main stream media. How can we prove guns kill people with this story as evidence?
No way! Americans like the Japanese. They make the stuff and we use the stuff. Inflating their own money only solidifies this deal, making Japan America's slave.
Responsibility. Anyone hear of it? Not in America. The numbers aren't going to add up. I feel sorry for the people who think they're going to get their money back. And even if they did, their money put into it in the 70's was worth a hell of a lot more then the stuff they are getting out. The future isn't bright.
Yes, but probably not like most people and I could change my mind if there was a good argument with enough research to back it up.
I think a person should have the ability to exist as a human, should the government fail them and fail to protect them. Thinking about an isolated person, trying to survive in nature, there are certain abilities that they have to use in order to survive. I believe there's three that I consider required. If you lacked any of them, you could not survive on your own. I think government has to specifically allow for these.
1. The right to possess property. You have to be able to have a home and use it to survive.
2. The right to protect your property and yourself. If you had the right to possess property, but not to protect it, that would be an instant breakdown of the system.
3. The right to provide for yourself. This includes growing crops and fashioning clothes and anything required to live a healthy life.guynamedbilly
This is a little broken. Number one can't be right to property. It's impossible. You can't have a right to property if you don't exist. Number one is right to life. Locke says you have a right to liberty, but if you have life then freedom always comes after. Number two is the right to property. The first property you own is your body. These are the only rights. Every other right is derived from them. Freedom to do actions and freedom to have ownership. This shouldn't have to be said, but these rights obviously don't give you the power to take life or property away from someone. This is the natural rights and the natural law.
[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Forgive my laziness but I'm not responding with an essay.
What I will say is this: Something that exists because we made it exist, an abstract concept that we make real, that is not universal, can easily be removed and took us thousands of years of doing other stuff in direct opposition to this abstract concept to finally nail down the details is not what I would call a natural law.
Social Rights is a far better name for this and it doesn't carry any of the baggage of claims natural rights and natural law carry (Locke was not in fact the first one to come up with this stuff). Natural rights historically arise from human nature but if not all humans follow them then clearly they don't exist. Get where I'm coming from? Ace6301
Something that exists because we made it exist. We didn't. We came up of the idea because we realised creation. How did I create the design of my fingerprints? And all the endless quetions of why things are. Because we made it so. No, we didn't.
Ah well good to know anything humans ever did was just realizing creation. So...how about that ritual sacrifice? Your point is that people need to follow rights in order for them to be rights. You're talking about laws. Rights are freedom. Laws are following, not freedom.
Forgive my laziness but I'm not responding with an essay.
What I will say is this: Something that exists because we made it exist, an abstract concept that we make real, that is not universal, can easily be removed and took us thousands of years of doing other stuff in direct opposition to this abstract concept to finally nail down the details is not what I would call a natural law.
Social Rights is a far better name for this and it doesn't carry any of the baggage of claims natural rights and natural law carry (Locke was not in fact the first one to come up with this stuff). Natural rights historically arise from human nature but if not all humans follow them then clearly they don't exist. Get where I'm coming from? Ace6301
Something that exists because we made it exist. We didn't. We came up of the idea because we realised creation. How did I create the design of my fingerprints? And all the endless quetions of why things are. Because we made it so. No, we didn't.
Log in to comment