TRoaches

Different government exist, and have existed, for a variety of reasons. Not all governments have recognized natural rights or built their legal system around the concept, and many governments that currently recognize natural rights did not always do so. For much of history in much of the world, including some current governments, the natural rights of an individual have not always been recognized or even considered by governments. A person was considered to be some form of a "subject" to the autocracy or oligarchy, and they existed only because the authority allowed them to. Over time the idea of natural rights became more acceptable to various governments, either by their own will or by the force of uprisings among their subjects, and this lead to changes such as those instituted by the Magna Carta and other similar legal revisions. The term "human rights" is really just a modernized rephrasing of "natural rights", and perhaps one that most of us are more familiar with than "natural rights". There are plenty of examples to be found around the world of governments that violate their citizens human, or natural, rights while simultaneously codifying their legal rights. According to the theory of natural law those people do still possess their natural rights, but they cannot exercise them because of their oppressive governments. Those governments are considered to be in violation of the natural law. Consider a person who is living under a government that is a human rights nightmare somewhere in the world. We could use North Korea as an example, where people have very little choice about how they live their lives and are provided only the most basic living accommodations. There are two ways that you could describe that scenario: 1) The government granted them the right to work, the right to food rations sufficient to prevent starvation, the right to a sufficiently comfortable home, the right to access the literature and culture that has been approved by the monitoring authorities, and the right to travel within designated and approved locations within their country. 2) The government has denied them the right to work where they choose, to be self employed, or to not work at all; denied them the right to eat whatever they can afford, grow, or otherwise procure; denied them the right to possess whatever property they can purchase, inherent, claim, or otherwise procure; denied them the right to express themselves and to witness the expression of others; and denied them the right to travel outside of their borders or to emigrate from their society. The difference between those two schools of thought is subtle but significant, like a glass half-full/half-empty sort of paradigm. The first choice is based on the idea that government grants rights to its citizens. The second choice is based on the theory of natural law and natural rights. There is nothing illegal about what the government is doing, but its legal government violates the the natural law and the natural rights of its citizens, which are inherent to their humanity and exist independent from the legal system. The question philosophical question "do humans have natural rights?" has been debated for a long time, and it does not have an inherently right or wrong answer. It is a matter of philosophical opinion, not a logical or factual premise. Interestingly, it is debatable whether any particular right is a natural one or not. The gun question is a perfect example: One could make a very good argument that the right to arms is not a natural right, and another could make a very good argument that it is a natural right. Another good example would be legal executions. My personal opinion is that legal executions violate the natural rights of the condemned, but there are many intelligent people who would disagree with my opinion about that as well.

I should have known better than to try to insert a joke about "the rules of the internet" into that post. The point was that you had resorted to a grammatical critique (and an erroneous one at that, a beautiful example of Muphry's Law), which indicates that you had perhaps given up on trying to make any sort of meaningful or coherent point.

I do not agree. Wow, we're going to have a grammar critique now? I think that means that, according to the rules of the internet, I really have officially won the debate. Here we go..... You should note that the definitions that you posted are nearly identical, aside from one being a single word definition and the other being a definition of a two word phrase that includes an alternate Anglicized spelling of the first word. One word uses the latin negative prefix "in-". The other uses an english negative prefix "un-". The founders used the Anglicized version in the Declaration of Independence because that was the more common spelling among English speaking literates at the time. The Latin prefixed version is more commonly used today.

Correct, but the purpose of law is to protect those basic natural rights and the rights derived from them. Legal rights are derived from natural rights, which we inherently possess but may be unable to protect without the aid of a government. When the law codifies a legal right it is not granting us something that did not exist before, rather it is attempting to offer protection against infringement of our rights to ensure that we continue to possess what we already had. Also, it is worth noting that you by using the two phrases interchangeably you seem to indicate that "god-given" and "inalienable" are synonymous terms. This is exactly what I said earlier in response to your earlier false assertion that politicians who use the phrase "god-given" are invoking a religious justification for their policies.

How about a named politician? Here's a good example: "It is always such an honor for us to spend this holiday with members of our military and your extraordinary families. All of you represent what is best in America. You serve under our proud flag. You and your families sacrifice more than most of us can ever know -- all in defense of those God-given rights that were first put to paper 236 years ago: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." -- President Barack Obama It seems that the president agrees that our rights are not granted by the government, but are inherently granted to us by virtue of our existence.

I'll just leave these here, because they sort of speak for themselves.... I provided a link so that you could learn the difference between natural and legal rights, but I can see that you did not bother to read up on it before replying. A natural right is one that exists outside or without the authority of a government. Natural rights are believed to exist regardless of what jurisdiction one is in, or in the lack of any legal authority at all. If all governments were abolished tomorrow the concept of natural rights would still exist, but the only protection that one would have against a violation of their natural rights would be their own persuasion or use of force. It is more of a philosophical concept than a legal one, but it is the basis of much of our legal system and many others around the world. A legal right is one that is codified and upheld by the government. A natural right can be codified as protected under law, but it does not require a law to exist. For example, if slavery is legal in a society then a slave is legal property and has no legal right to liberty. Any attempt by a third party to liberate that slave is, according to the law, a violation of the legal property rights of the slave's owner. The claim of a natural right to liberty was a central theme in abolitionist theory. It was cited by the movement in legal arguments against the slavery laws on the basis that they violated natural rights, and that these natural rights are of a higher order and supercede the legal property rights of the slave owners.

I did not ignore it. I explained it. You ignored my explanation. Your claim was that the letter had a "strong political message" that was associated with right-wing politics. I challenged you to demonstrate a correlation between the letter's content and the right-wing platform. You failed to do this, because no member of any party has ever advocated what the letter advocates. If an openly religious person is elected to any office it is because they attracted the most voters, not because they alienated them. Keith Ellison won his last election in a landslide, despite his "alienating" religious beliefs. The wording of the constitution makes it very clear that it is not granting any rights. It recognizes and protects natural rights by limiting the government's power to infringe upon them. It makes heavy use of words like "shall not be infringed" and "shall make no law". It does not tell you what you can do. Rather, it tells the government what it cannot do.

No political party or politician in recent history has advocated shooting a politician, law enforcement officer, or any other civil citizen in the face. Describing this as being even remotely similar to "right-wing rhetoric" is offensive. Shooting people in the face is not a political statement. It is the complete opposite of political discourse. The fact that you read those words and think "Republican" says much about your closed-minded and dogmatic approach to political thought. We already went over the fact that in the our legal system the government does not grant the citizens rights. The citizens are understood to inherently possess their rights, and the government is limited by its own laws in to the extent to which it may infringe upon them. Describing them as "god-given" is not a religious statement as much as a turn of phrase that means "inherent from birth". Even if the use of the word god in this context is a reference to religion there is no reason that an elected official or party cannot invoke their religious beliefs as a basis or justification for their agenda. They are free to do so as a part of their protected right to expression. ETA: If "LaPierre does not invoke hatred" is only my opinion then, logically speaking, your statement that LaPierre DOES invoke hatred is also just an opinion.

1. Heroic, considering the monster that he is antagonizing, the fact that he is not hiding behind anonymity, and the privileged and lucrative position that he gave up in the process. I had initially glanced over the story of the leak and did not pay much attention to it because I assumed it was done anonymously, as these things usually are, and because the claims being made were the type that seemed obvious to anyone who has been paying attention yet frustratingly unverifiable without a solid source. This interview with Snowden made be really admire him. He elaborates on just how cushy his position was, and even goes into the fact that the information that he released was worth a fortune on the black market. He chose to share it for free, and at great risk to himself. He briefly touches on the possibility of being "rendered" by the CIA, or retaliation being brought against him via their third party partners in organized crime. It is rather chilling to hear him say "that's a fear I'll live under for the rest of my life, however long that happens to be". 2. The surveillance itself isn't necessarily a bad thing and is a inevitable side effect of living in a technological society. The fact is that all of the information that the NSA is gathering through this program is stuff that people are willingly putting out there to be collected. The alternative is to live off the grid without a bank account, credit cards, the internet, etc. It may be a crummy choice, but it is still a choice. Data mining is something that private businesses have been doing for years as well, just not on the same scale as the NSA. They are basically a data mining company with unlimited access and a near-unlimited budget. The scary part of what Snowden is exposing is not that the program exists, but that it is set up in such a way that it can be so easily abused without oversight. 3. This is one of those issues that serves to illustrate the absurdity of the one dimensional left v right paradigm of political thought. The two major parties are always in agreeance when it comes to the really important stuff and put on a big theatrical presentation of disagreeing about more petty issues. 5. They advocate it because their business model relies on it. We could choose not to use their services. I have never understood why people who are concerned to any extent about privacy choose to use things like Facebook. Cell phones are an inherent invasion of privacy. There was recently some outcry about a court ruling that one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy while using a cell phone. I agreed with the ruling, because I can't imagine why one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy while operating a radio transmitter that is being bounced through a privately owned relay service.

Have you read the letters? Can you cite a transcript of their content that backs your claim? If not, and you are making assumptions about their content and basing your rhetoric on those assumptions, then you are again guilty of spreading the same type of false rhetoric that you claim to oppose. None of these claims or methods are invocations of hatred, and the statistics that you cite are not indications of hatred. Even if Obama IS hated by a full 50% of the public or more it would not be unusual.

Colourwheel, you have used the word "hate" to describe opposing political opinion more times in this thread than I care to count. Regardless of what you think of LaPierre he has never encouraged hatred towards anyone. If I am wrong then please cite a single example of LaPierre or any gun lobbyist or other prominent gun-rights figure encouraging hatred against any of the ricin targets. If you cannot show an example of this then you are guilty, once again, of spreading one of those "false narratives" that you are so afraid of.

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned there about the danger posed by demonizing those who hold opposing political opinions, and persecuting them based on that perceived threat despite a lack of evidence to support it. If the FBI operated under the same prejudices that you do the investigation would have been focused finding a link to the NRA. Thankfully, professional investigators try to avoid making assumptions and focus instead on the available data. Public perception of a threat does not mean that the threat is real.

@Lisnpuppy: The survey does not make any claims about any bills. It says that the president has supported gun registries and purchase tracking, but makes no statements about his currently stated position or agenda. There are no false claims made in the survey. If someone is mislead by the survey it is because they are not thinking critically about what they are reading. That is their problem, not the NRA's. You seem to be missing the point that, when challenged to cite a lie told by the NRA, you instead cited a verifiable statement of fact made by the NRA which was presented by you as a lie. If anything, that seems much more misleading than anything that the survey contained. I said no such thing, though for what its worth I would not disagree with that statement either. No, but you did claim that his rhetoric does not spread fear and hate. I was only pointing out that his rhetoric has spread plenty of both to areas around the world. For incomprehensible reasons the very same liberals who were so critical of Bush's military aggression (and rightly so) have been silent with regards to Obama's escalation of that aggression. Politicians have always utilized public fear as a method of distraction so that they can push the unsavory parts of their policy with less scrutiny. It is one of the oldest and most widely utilized political manipulations used throughout history. The gun issue is a perfect example: Even though gun violence has decreased in the US it is at the forefront of the public policy agenda. It has received more press coverage than perhaps any other topic. Meanwhile, the President has escalated our foreign military imperialism and interventionism, assisted in the toppling of a few governments, set a precedent of using drone strikes to assassinate US citizens without due process, and members of his administration have been implicated in using the IRS as a tool to target political opposition groups as well as selling weapons to mexican drug cartels. He is looking more and more like an extra-corrupt reincarnation of Reagan.

Why did you cite something that is irrelevent? You claim that this is the sole purpose of his rhetoric, so what is his motivation? What does LaPierre have to gain from spreading fear and hate? I would argue that Obama's campaign lies, and his election based on those lies, has spread as much or more fear and hate among the public than anything LaPierre could ever say. Does the Iraqi public count as a part of the public? Do you think that the increased casualties in Iraq due to Obama's lies have perhaps spread some fear and hate? Don't you think drone strikes around the region that kill civilians are a cause of fear and hate? Do you think nothing of the Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, and others who have been killed because Obama lied when he claimed to be opposed to militarism and in fact has behaved quite militantly? Compared to gun violence in the US, which has actually decreased in the last decade, I think our increased military aggression is a much bigger problem, and it was enabled through a "false narrative" that the president used to get elected. That aggression has spread much fear and hate into the minds of the public, if you consider the public to include people who are not Americans.

This is the precise wording of the survey question that you are alleging is a lie: Notice that it does not say "Obama currently supports", but rather "Obama has supported". It is a past tense reference to what he has supported in the past. When he was a legislator his stated position was in favor of banning all semi-auto guns, banning all handguns, and tracking all gun purchases at the state level via mandatory registration. Given that the sharing of information between state and federal agencies was one of the big reasons behind the creation of the patriot act it stands to reason that any law enforcement or security information gathered by individual states constitutes a federal database once it is aggregated by the DHS. The line between state level and federal level has been nearly non-existent since 2001 at least with regard to law enforcement. When he ran for president he adopted a more moderate position on gun control but the language of the survey question is not restricted to his current position or the position he has held while president. Therefore, it is not a lie.

I did read the bill, but the wording of the bill is almost irrelevant. The precedent is for the government to ignore its own laws with regard to privacy. They can put whatever they want in the gun registration law, but it will be superseded by the patriot act. Is it against the law to tap a phone without a warrant? Does it still happen? The problem with the gun registration requirement is that it creates a potential for abuse, and where there is potential for abuse there is an almost certainty that the potential will be utilized.

That article focuses on the NRA's assertion that the President supports a national gun registry, and calls this a lie based on the fact that he does not say he would like to create a registry. Once again, it is a purely semantical difference. Obama does not use the phrase "gun registry". His position is that the purchase of a gun should require a background check. Let's say that a law is passed making these proposed background checks a requirement to legally purchase a gun. Do you believe that, following the proposed background check, the information gathered during the check would be discarded? If that information is retained, as it certainly would be, that IS a gun registry. There is no difference. To argue that a required federal background check does not produce a gun registry is like saying that the requirement to obtain a driver's license to legally drive does not produce a driver registry. A registry, as it is being used here, is nothing more than a list of people who have been processed under the proposed law. What is the difference between a federal gun registry and the information that would be collected during a federal gun purchase background check? Are they not the same thing? I realize that the existing laws prohibit such information from being retained, but the existing law is not the issue. It is about proposed law, and speculation about the possibilities of what direction such law could point us toward. Also, the federal government has a nice track record of ignoring their own laws with regards to privacy, such as the whole wiretapping issue during the Bush administration. The law says that the feds need a warrant to tap a phone, but it is now known that they monitor every phone call without a warrant. They do this under the authority granted by the patriot act, which legally supersedes nearly any other law in the nation. There is no reason to assume that such an abuse would not occur with the background check data as well.

I disagree that they are spreading misinformation. You have yet to demonstrate that any of their claims are incorrect or misinformative. You simply do not agree with them. That does not make them liars. Your political perspective is very self-centered. You seem unwilling to acknowledge even the possibility that their opinions hold any validity by consistently referring to them as misinformation. Please cite a single example of the NRA lying about anything. Remember, a prediction or speculation is not a lie. Please provide an example of something that the NRA stated as fact but can be unambiguously and objectively proven false. In contrast, it is quite easy to find examples of lies that the President has told.

You said that LaPierre should be held accountable for "false rhetoric" that you incorrectly linked to the ricin letters. You repeated this many times.

I thought I was being sufficiently thick with the sarcasm when I said that we must hold others accountable for her actions. You ARE the one who has been pushing that idea. It is interesting that you no longer feel this is necessary now that you are the one who, according to your own standard of responsibility in public political speech, is refusing to do what you consider to be the responsible thing and retract your earlier slanderous statements about LaPierre. Your position was that LaPierre's statements are fostering violence, and this has been proven to be a false narrative. If you were willing to apply that same standard to yourself then you should retract that slanderous false narrative. It is, according to your rhetoric, the responsible thing to do. You seem unwilling to do this. Why do you hold others to a standard that you are not willing to hold yourself to?

I did not bring it up. You did, by starting a thread based on the false narrative that rhetoric oppositional to gun control policy was somehow responsible for the ricin letters. You also claimed that spreading rhetoric based on a false narrative could create such a level fear and paranoia that it should not be considered a protected form of free speech, akin to falsely shouting fire in a theater. Now that your narrative has been proven to be false do you should, according to your own standard of responsible speech, feel some responsibility to set the record straight and clarify that LaPierre's opinion is not a danger to society as you earlier claimed it to be. You should also condemn anyone else in the media who falsely blamed the attacks on LaPierre. Like you said, it is the responsible thing to do. According to your own standard you must be held accountable for your political speech. Remember all of that talk about slander? It has been proven that you have been slandering LaPierre to quite an extent by falsely claiming that the letters were related to his speech. Again, I don't think you should have to say or do anything. I am just applying your own standard of responsibility to your political expression.

I did not realize that a score was being kept, but if this is the case I hardly feel like I am losing. I don't think anyone should ever be held accountable for the actions of another person. That was your premise, not mine. I just wondered who you thought should be blamed now that it is obvious that gun control policy had nothing to do with it. It seems that your accountability theory is only being applied when it can be conveniently used to demonize someone you disagree with. As the NPR article points out, the other ricin mailer was also found to be a fraud who was trying to frame another person for the crime due to a personal dispute. The content of those letters from gave no mention to guns or gun control and did not resemble anything that LaPierre has ever said. They were very vague rants that made no mention of any policy. It sounds like the idea that the world is in danger from "gun nuts" may be one of those false narratives that you keep mentioning. Maybe the people who spread that false narrative should be held accountable!

But wait! Where did she get the idea to do this? Surely she could not have come up with this idea all on her own. Someone must have planted the idea in her head. We must hold others accountable for her actions! So, colourwheel.....Who else is to blame for this? You have maintained thus far that a person would not do such a thing without being influenced by someone prominent. Who influenced this person? Who should be held accountable, and expected to condemn her actions?

Nobody mentioned or suggested arrest before you did. It was in this post in response to the same question that I asked in my last post: What does it mean to be "held accountable"? OH HEY LOOK AT THIS! It turns out that the person who mailed the letters did it because she wanted to frame her husband for the crime due to their impending divorce. I guess it had nothing to do with gun control after all! So, considering this new information, who do you think should be held accountable now?

When pressed to define what it means to be "held accountable" you said that people should be arrested for their rhetoric. So now I guess we are back to that question. What does it mean to "hold accountable", as you are now using it?