Fatal shooting at Denver screening of The Dark Knight Rises

[Canceled.2014.1]

Do you believe people have the right to own weapons of mass destruction? You keep avoiding this question.

I have not answered it. I have avoided nothing. I think people have a right to bear arms. I do not believe we have a right to weapons of mass destruction as in bombs, nukes or the like. I do not believe that is relevant to this discussion.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Only if the mother decides so.

I am not baiting you into an abortion rights discussion. Does a living, independent human being, who has committed no crime, have a right to live? (unless your mother has the say in that too)

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Without laws, you have no rights. You can assert to the contrary whatever you want and you'll still be wrong.

sorry, your twisted opinion does not change the fact that you do not need a government to grant you rights. you obviously don't understand what inalienable means. i suggest you look it up. it will help you understand the discussion better.

 

[CanceledB]

I am not baiting you into an abortion rights discussion. Does a living, independent human being, who has committed no crime, have a right to live? (unless your mother has the say in that too)

No. They simply are. There's no 'right' attached to it. They have an innate will to survive and act in accordance with that, as does every other breathing creature. But that doesn't equate to a 'right' to be alive.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Only if the mother decides so.

Lets try another way of getting the same answer. Does a woman have a right to control her own body?

 

[Phantasmal]

I have not answered it. I have avoided nothing. I think people have a right to bear arms. I do not believe we have a right to weapons of mass destruction as in bombs, nukes or the like. I do not believe that is relevant to this discussion.

Oh, but it is.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

No. They simply are. There's no 'right' attached to it.

They simply are? WTF? So no rights except those given by laws?

 

[CanceledB]

sorry, your twisted opinion does not change the fact that you do not need a government to grant you rights. you obviously don't understand what inalienable means. i suggest you look it up. it will help you understand the discussion better.

There's no such thing as an 'inalienable' right. That's a man-made wet dream. If it were real, it wouldn't matter where on earth a human being were, they'd all have the same rights.
Think about it.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Oh, but it is.

Oh but we disagree on that point.

 

[CanceledB]

They simply are? WTF? So no rights except those given by laws?

That's correct. Unless there is a law, rule, or tenet that provides for or protects it, guess what? Your rights are fair game.

 

[Damocles]

Without laws, you have no rights. You can assert to the contrary whatever you want and you'll still be wrong.

Incorrect, without recognizing rights there can be no limit on laws. The negative freedoms of government in the Constitution clearly outlined individual rights so that laws could not infringe on them and wrote rules on what the government cannot do with the specific enumerated powers for each branch. The rights came before the laws, they are what should limit the law.

Laws do not create rights, they can only infringe on them.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

That's correct. Unless there is a law, rule, or tenet that provides for or protects it, guess what? Your rights are fair game.

So a woman only has a right to control her own body by virtue of the laws in place?

 

[Phantasmal]

Actually, only property owners could vote, and no I am not kidding when I tell you that women were afforded those same rights enumerated.

Again, women went armed, they wrote articles, they protested (you even note that)...

The constitution changed with Amendments to include voting rights for everybody, however the "Creator" given rights as listed in the Bill of Rights was afforded to women, but not to black people. Voting was not one of the enumerated rights, and was not afforded to many people.

Yes, we did protest, but we did not have the right to do so, many were jailed, shunned or were put to death for their protests. I am surprised you do not know the history of the sufferettes, but sadly, most people don't.

 

[CanceledB]

Incorrect, without recognizing rights there can be no limit on laws. The negative freedoms of government in the Constitution clearly outlined rights so that laws could not infringe on them. Laws do not create rights, they can only infringe on them.

Exactly, they're all outlined and written down. Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

There's no such thing as an 'inalienable' right. That's a man-made wet dream. If it were real, it wouldn't matter where on earth a human being were, they'd all have the same rights.
Think about it.

wtf? just because another country doesn't recognize certain inalienable rights, does not mean they don't exist.

you think about it.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Incorrect, without recognizing rights there can be no limit on laws. The negative freedoms of government in the Constitution clearly outlined individual rights so that laws could not infringe on them and wrote rules of what the government cannot do.

Laws do not create rights, they can only infringe on them.

This!

 

[Phantasmal]

So a woman only has a right to control her own body by virtue of the laws in place?

Precisely. You know history, or I thought you did. Are guys really that uneducated on women's history?

 

[CanceledB]

So a woman only has a right to control her own body by virtue of the laws in place?

Be more specific, please. You're probably still wrong, but give it a shot.

 

[Phantasmal]

Oh but we disagree on that point.

Yes, we do.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

let's just take the second amendment and show why bijou's logic is dead wrong:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

notice the last phrase. it is not granting anything, rather, it says the government shall not infringe upon a right. that right obviously existed before the second as the second does not create it, it merely protects it.

i doubt bijou will address this post.