The science of gun crimes

clax · Dec 25, 2012

tecoyah said:
Okay...lets look at this another way:

"Inalienable Rights~

Not subject to sale or transfer; inseparable.
That which is inalienable cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another. The personal rights to life and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States are inalienable. Similarly, various types of property are inalienable, such as rivers, streams, and highways."

Considering the definition above, does a woman have the same rights as a man?

If so, why does she not have them in Afghanistan but does have them here?

Why did she have far fewer inalienable rights 100 yrs ago in the United States?

Did African Americans spontaniously develop these rights due to a genetic alteration?

~Or~

Did we create laws to change our society and enforce them through the courts?

The people of Afghanistan don't have rights because they don't fight for them, and demand their legal system abide by these rights.

women in the United states gained legally protected rights by civil disobedience, the government complied because it was forced to. through people adamant in the notion of inalienable rights. the court did its job by making law to protect newly claimed rights, it had no choice.

Black people gained rights through civil disobediance the simply refused to allow their rights to be ignored anylonger, again the courts were forced to do their job, making laws that protect rights.

these three things have something in common, they started in an individual, there were martyrs, but people beat the court, or more along the line of truth the rulers orderd and the servants obeyed. the servants being the courts and the rulers being the people.

in the case of the black civil rights momement a preacher vigileante started to ignite the desire to have equal rights. the courts didn't just decide to give them to them, the people took them, ordered there servants to protect them. the court couldn't produce any constitutionality for with holding rights from their masters based on skin color.

but these rights came from the people not the courts our champions our martyrs are Susan b. Anthony, martin Luther king jr, Rosa parks countless others that stood behind the person that just had the courage to fight city hall and win. these are the remembered people, the supreme court justices, not sure who they are. frankly they are bastards in this all for not seeing the oversight in the first place.

the change in society was the law not allowing the infringement of the rights, so that everybody doesnt have to battle like the martyrs did. it is ugly but once a law is made to protect the rights of people the court finely did it's job, only under threat of the loss of peace.

people are power not the gavel.

I fight this personally, I am battling for rights not just for me but for my ward, and others that have a right. not yet protected by the courts. I don't praise the for after 273 years finally doing their job. I will succeed my fellow homosexual brethren will succeed not because the court allowed it but because others will fight with us.

tecoyah · Dec 25, 2012

clax said:
The people of Afghanistan don't have rights because they don't fight for them, and demand their legal system abide by these rights.

women in the United states gained legally protected rights by civil disobedience, the government complied because it was forced to. through people adamant in the notion of inalienable rights. the court did its job by making law to protect newly claimed rights, it had no choice.

Black people gained rights through civil disobediance the simply refused to allow their rights to be ignored anylonger, again the courts were forced to do their job, making laws that protect rights.

these three things have something in common, they started in an individual, there were martyrs, but people beat the court, or more along the line of truth the rulers orderd and the servants obeyed. the servants being the courts and the rulers being the people.

in the case of the black civil rights momement a preacher vigileante started to ignite the desire to have equal rights. the courts didn't just decide to give them to them, the people took them, ordered there servants to protect them. the court couldn't produce any constitutionality for with holding rights from their masters based on skin color.

but these rights came from the people not the courts our champions our martyrs are Susan b. Anthony, martin Luther king jr, Rosa parks countless others that stood behind the person that just had the courage to fight city hall and win. these are the remembered people, the supreme court justices, not sure who they are. frankly they are bastards in this all for not seeing the oversight in the first place.

the change in society was the law not allowing the infringement of the rights, so that everybody doesnt have to battle like the martyrs did. it is ugly but once a law is made to protect the rights of people the court finely did it's job, only under threat of the loss of peace.

people are power not the gavel.

I fight this personally, I am battling for rights not just for me but for my ward, and others that have a right. not yet protected by the courts. I don't praise the for after 273 years finally doing their job. I will succeed my fellow homosexual brethren will succeed not because the court allowed it but because others will fight with us.

We are at an impasse, as it would seem my attempts at pointing out what I see as a logical error in your thinking have failed to get through...still I will state it again for the record:

You claim the courts do not instill our rights.
I point out that it is only through the courts and legislation that these rights exist.
You claim they are inalienable to us all.
I point out that they are not a given, but rather come about due to the courts and society enforcing them upon the population.

As it seems we cannot both be correct, I say we simply agree to disagree.
I will however Give my last jab....

My version of this reality is easily shown true by a review of history and fact.

clax · Dec 25, 2012

tecoyah said:
We are at an impasse, as it would seem my attempts at pointing out what I see as a logical error in your thinking have failed to get through...still I will state it again for the record:

You claim the courts do not instill our rights.
I point out that it is only through the courts and legislation that these rights exist.
You claim they are inalienable to us all.
I point out that they are not a given, but rather come about due to the courts and society enforcing them upon the population.

As it seems we cannot both be correct, I say we simply agree to disagree.
I will however Give my last jab....

My version of this reality is easily shown true by a review of history and fact.

Well, agreed, on the dis agreement. After the past for days of posting I will simply walk away, and take your jab. Merry Christmas tecoyeah.

Nemo · Dec 25, 2012

For someone who claims to be a law enforcement officer, you seem to have very little respect for the law. No doubt you will learn for yourself the true nature and source of your rights when you have need to enforce them. How disappointed you will be to discover that you are not endowed by your creator with unalienable rights. God-given rights are only good in heaven; and quoting John Locke will get you nothing in court. In the real world, one need have recourse to the law.

clax · Dec 25, 2012

Nemo said:
For someone who claims to be a law enforcement officer, you seem to have very little respect for the law. No doubt you will learn for yourself the true nature and source of your rights when you have need to enforce them. How disappointed you will be to discover that you are not endowed by your creator with unalienable rights. God-given rights are only good in heaven; and quoting John Locke will get you nothing in court. In the real world, one need to have recourse to the law.

I think I am pretty certain where law gets it's power, it's from people who choose to obey it, but I just see it on a daily basis, I can't possably know.

I have the up most respect for the law as it is, not as you think it is. Law is what society agrees to enforce and what can be enforced. 9 old lawyers can't enforce it, thousands of cops can't enforce it, 300,000,000 people have to choose to obey.

People have the power, people are who I serve.

myp · Dec 25, 2012

When someone is sacrificed or murdered, their life is taken away. There is no inalienable right to life.

When someone is jailed without reason, their liberty is taken away (as per my definition of liberty). There is no inalienable right to liberty.

When someone is held captive and tortured, their pursuit of happiness is taken away. There is no inalienable right to pursuit of happiness.

Locke thought property was an inalienable right, the founding fathers did not. If it was inalienable, it is inalienable, but apparently not.

Inalienable means can be taken away. All of these things can be taken away- even if you fight for it- someone can shoot you in the head and it is taken away as those unfortunate children in the school in Connecticut and their parents found out. To suggest otherwise, is to delude oneself into believing a false, but perhaps more comforting, reality.

clax · Dec 25, 2012

myp said:
When someone is sacrificed or murdered, their life is taken away. There is no inalienable right to life.

When someone is jailed without reason, their liberty is taken away (as per my definition of liberty). There is no inalienable right to liberty.

When someone is held captive and tortured, their pursuit of happiness is taken away. There is no inalienable right to pursuit of happiness.

Locke thought property was an inalienable right, the founding fathers did not. If it was inalienable, it is inalienable, but apparently not.

Inalienable means can be taken away. All of these things can be taken away- even if you fight for it- someone can shoot you in the head and it is taken away as those unfortunate children in the school in Connecticut and their parents found out. To suggest otherwise, is to delude oneself into believing a false, but perhaps more comforting, reality.

Inalienable by the state.

myp · Dec 25, 2012

clax said:
Inalienable by the state.

Considering the state can murder, jail without reason, and hold captive/torture, the only reason the rights are there is because the state (i.e. the law) says it is. Plenty of states have murdered, jailed without reason, and held captive/tortured, including the United States, ironically. And even if they hadn't, the mere fact that the possibility stands shows that these rights are not inalienable. They can be taken away (and have been in the past).

clax · Dec 25, 2012

myp said:
Considering the state can murder, jail without reason, and hold captive/torture, the only reason the rights are there is because the state (i.e. the law) says it is. Plenty of states have murdered, jailed without reason, and held captive/tortured, including the United States, ironically. And even if they hadn't, the mere fact that the possibility stands shows that these rights are not inalienable. They can be taken away (and have been in the past).

Nit sure who the state murdered, but if the murdered anybody they certainly didn't do it legally.

Murder is illegal.

myp · Dec 25, 2012

The end point here is that the vast majority of humans probably believe we should all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But it is only those of us privileged enough to live under states which as policy believe in these rights who actually get to live with those rights defended by the state. They are not universally inalienable, but only so long as they are not trampled by the state or someone else like the teenager in CT who shot up the school. But then that just defeats the purpose of using the word "inalienable". They are just rights. Rights which were thought up by humans and protected by some governments and peoples.

"Rights" in and of themselves are a creation of humans, for humans. There is nothing in the natural world that suggests there is a "right" to anything. There is nothing that even says what a "right" is. The concept doesn't exist. It was thought up by humans. That doesn't make it any less important, but perhaps less mystical.

clax · Dec 25, 2012

myp said:
The end point here is that the vast majority of humans probably believe we should all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But it is only those of us privileged enough to live under states which as policy believe in these rights who actually get to live with those rights defended by the state. They are not universally inalienable, but only so long as they are not trampled by the state or someone else like the teenager in CT who shot up the school. But then that just defeats the purpose of using the word "inalienable". They are just rights. Rights which were thought up by humans and protected by some governments and peoples.

"Rights" in and of themselves are a creation of humans, for humans. There is nothing in the natural world that suggests there is a "right" to anything. There is nothing that even says what a "right" is. The concept doesn't exist. It was thought up by humans. That doesn't make it any less important, but perhaps less mystical.

I must disagree, the concept exists. But I don't think that was you're point. They come from humanity. Not from outside of humanity, it is a concept. But this us really semantics

misterveritis · Dec 29, 2012

myp said:
Maybe this is better for another thread. What does all this have to do with guns? I'm not quite sure you grasp the economic environment and how to analyze it though.

A revolution requires arms. Maybe that is why there is a push to disarm us.

Try not to worry your pretty little head about what I do or do not understand. If a thing is important I can learn it. So far I have not run into any subject I was unable to learn or to teach myself.

misterveritis · Dec 29, 2012

Nemo said:
One more time - and get it straight in your head - there are no unalienable rights. Your rights are provided by law; which is implicit in the in the plain meaning of the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. All rights exist only by law; and without the law, we have no rights. Without law, there is anarchy; which is antithetical to the very existence of the rights you advocate. Rights can only exist within the structure of organized society subject to the rule of law. In this, it must be admitted that there can be no society without the law; it is the very fabric of social structure. It is, like the air we breathe, pervasive and essential, affecting every aspect of human relationships and endeavors. Beyond this lies only the uncertainty of uncivilized life where there is no society, where every man is a law unto himself; and life, as Hobbes put it, is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651). Such rights are nothing more than a scrambling possession that would be unlikely to last beyond the first to challenge the claim by force. The law is the only means by which real rights may be secured. That is the simple meaning of it.

These are not the thoughts of a person who will remain free for long.

Your rights are inherent in your being. You have the right to defend yourself because you exist. Some governments recognize rights and codify them in their important documents. When governments endanger, rather than support these rights we have the right to overthrow that government and replace it with another.

We are getting close to to that time. This government adds one small tyranny upon another. It exploits the people who no exist to support the government. The last elections were very likely stolen. Once it is clear that our elections are no longer fair elections there will be no turning back from the revolution that must come.

We are stealing the wealth of the next generation. They will rebel when the times come. Or the will wear chains as many of us already do. Then all will be lost for several generations.

How did we allow temporary politicians to steal away that which was ours?

Nemo · Dec 30, 2012

You are dead wrong. The argument that we, as citizens, have a constitutional right to take up arms against our lawfully constituted government is without any foundation. There is no support for such right, either historically or constitutionally. The American Revolution was a war waged for separation of the American colonies from the rule of the English monarchy, and not a rebellion against the established colonial governments. The colonies were being taxed under English laws in which they had no elected representatives in Parliament; and when the Crown refused to grant representation, the colonies, in Continental Congress, declared their separate statehood and independence. The notion that a citizen has a constitutionally protected right to bear arms against the government is utter nonsense. There is no such right; and to advocate such action is nothing less than sedition, to act upon it treason.

Likewise, the reliance on the supposed historical record of the founding fathers is wrong. George Washington, who is considered the father of our nation and who commanded the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, was the president of the Constitutional Convention that drafted our Constitution that is the framework of our government of laws, and thereafter elected to be the first President of the United States. During his term in office, President Washington put down the Whisky rebellion of 1794, which was an armed insurrection against the government in protest of the tax enacted by Congress in 1791. Washington personally lead the organized militia to quash the rebellion and assert the federal government’s authority over the states and their citizens.

Misguided people like you would do well to learn from history lest you suffer the consequences of repeating it.

clax · Dec 30, 2012

I would like to get back to the original topic of this post instead of the bitter stale mate, i managed to read the first paragraph then my computer looked, now the link is blank, perhaps there is another way you can link the artical myp.

myp · Dec 30, 2012

clax said:
I would like to get back to the original topic of this post instead of the bitter stale mate, i managed to read the first paragraph then my computer looked, now the link is blank, perhaps there is another way you can link the artical myp.

Still works for me. Maybe try clearing your cache/cookies and reloading it?

clax · Dec 30, 2012

myp said:
Still works for me. Maybe try clearing your cache/cookies and reloading it?

I have tried everything it just locks my computer up.

It seemed like an ingesting artical, but the discussion devolved into the second amendment. Seems so common.

misterveritis · Dec 30, 2012

Nemo said:
For someone who claims to be a law enforcement officer, you seem to have very little respect for the law. No doubt you will learn for yourself the true nature and source of your rights when you have need to enforce them. How disappointed you will be to discover that you are not endowed by your creator with unalienable rights. God-given rights are only good in heaven; and quoting John Locke will get you nothing in court. In the real world, one need have recourse to the law.

Clax is right on every point. And you are wrong.

We have our rights because we exist. Governments can choose to recognize our rights and their obligation to protect our rights. Or governments can choose to be silent on the issue. Some government injure our rights.

People who believe as you do will not remain free for long. I hope there are not many of you.

tecoyah · Dec 30, 2012

misterveritis said:
Clax is right on every point. And you are wrong.

We have our rights because we exist. Governments can choose to recognize our rights and their obligation to protect our rights. Or governments can choose to be silent on the issue. Some government injure our rights.

People who believe as you do will not remain free for long. I hope there are not many of you.

Okay...so let's just say you live in a country that denies you a right you inherently deserve, were born with, and feel is inalienable.

Yet the country denies it anyway.

Does this right exist in anything but your mind?

misterveritis · Dec 30, 2012

myp said:
When someone is sacrificed or murdered, their life is taken away. There is no inalienable right to life.

When someone is jailed without reason, their liberty is taken away (as per my definition of liberty). There is no inalienable right to liberty.

When someone is held captive and tortured, their pursuit of happiness is taken away. There is no inalienable right to pursuit of happiness.

Locke thought property was an inalienable right, the founding fathers did not. If it was inalienable, it is inalienable, but apparently not.

Inalienable means can be taken away. All of these things can be taken away- even if you fight for it- someone can shoot you in the head and it is taken away as those unfortunate children in the school in Connecticut and their parents found out. To suggest otherwise, is to delude oneself into believing a false, but perhaps more comforting, reality.

Clax is right on every point. And you are wrong on every point.

If the murdered do not have a right to life on what basis do we punish the one who takes their life from them?
If someone is imprisoned unjustly and therefore has no right to liberty why should any complain? On what basis do people make the effort to reverse the imprisonment?

This sentiment is asstonishly un-American.

I must assume you are a democrat.

The science of gun crimes

Similar threads