Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

I Have A Natural Right To Take Your Guns


4588686

Recommended Posts

And redistribute them to a fabulous army of militant homosexuals.

 

 

Case closed.  

Edited by Hasan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PhuturePriest
And redistribute them to a fabulous army of militant homosexuals.

 

 

Case closed.  

 

Our family friend Josh always said if America wants a truly kickass army that cannot be beat, we need an all-gay branch of the military with pink guns. If we take his advice and then add Rush Limbaugh's idea of making a branch of women soldiers that are brought to the fight only when they are having PMS, we will conquer the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone move this to the Lame Board...

 

That's one option.  Another would be to prove me wrong.  Prove that I have no such natural right. I'm completely serious.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's one option.  Another would be to prove me wrong.  Prove that I have no such natural right. I'm completely serious.  

 

Ok, I will bite. Even though I feel like I am walking into some kind of pseudo-Socratic trap. ;)

 

I can assert in contrast that I have the natural right to buy, possess, and maintain a gun. What is the difference between my claim and yours?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I will bite. Even though I feel like I am walking into some kind of pseudo-Socratic trap. ;)

 

 

Probabbbbblllllyyyyyyyy 

 

 

I can assert in contrast that I have the natural right to buy, possess, and maintain a gun. What is the difference between my claim and yours?

 

I don't think there is.  Which is why I don't think that claims about natural rights have any real meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there is.  Which is why I don't think that claims about natural rights have any real meaning.

 

So there is no substantial difference between me wanting to have property and keep to myself, and you wanting to have my property and get in my business?

I mean, we can put aside whether or not it is justified, but you really do not think that is a meaningful difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He means empirical proof. Like discovering frogs go deaf when you cut their legs off.

 

Any sort of proof would do.  You are an animal on the planet.  You demarcate a subset of that planet's resources as yours and suddenly you have a transcendent and morally unassailable right to those resources (which have now,  hoc est enim corpus meum, transformed into 'property').  This strikes me as a pretty extraordinary claim.  It makes sense in the context of a state system (not surprising since private property as we now understand it evolved in tandem with the state) but very little sense outside of that context.  It is obviously a social construction whose only moral justification would be that everybody agreed to play by those rules.  Outside of that property is just the strong grabbing up chunks of resources and threatening violence on anybody who disagreed (which is actually pretty close to what actually happened in much of the world).  



So there is no substantial difference between me wanting to have property and keep to myself, and you wanting to have my property and get in my business?

I mean, we can put aside whether or not it is justified, but you really do not think that is a meaningful difference?

 

What do you mean by 'meaningful difference'?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KnightofChrist

what in the world IS a "natural right"?

 

Human right coming from the Author of nature and directly based on the natural law. It is absolutely unchangeable and is the foundation of all positive rights. All civil laws, therefore, are only as valid as they are based on the natural rights of the citizen. Thus, e.g., the unborn child has a natural right to life that no political authority may take away.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by 'meaningful difference'?

Nothing technical or anything, but I think it is a difference that is relevant to the moral nature of different actions. Just like there is a meaningful difference between throwing a rock at a bees nest, and throwing a rock through your window.

It would seem by your arguments that these are more or less morally identical, and I only do not throw rocks through your window because the law says I cannot, or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...