Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Oct 2001 09:10:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
372 times
|
| |
|
|
Hello Chris,
> > But then, I
> > could ask, are you allowed to drive? And your answer would be about the
> > same: Yes, but not before you obtain a license.
>
> Absolutely. The citizens of the US do not have a right to drive. But we do
> have a right to bear arms. All of them. Without "special permission."
I understand that this is the current situation. But why would you want to
maintain it exactly this way? What makes driving different from bearing
arms? Why is it acceptable to require permission for one but not the other?
> > I am not talking the death penalty here,
> > but could it be that there is some correlation between this fact and some of
> > your other beloved rights?
>
> Yes. It has been clearly and convincingly demonstrated that as firearms
> increase in commonality, violent crime decreases.
Really? Why is it, then, that the murder rate in the US is higher than in
most European countries (I didn't know about Britain, so, granted, there
seem to be more factors)? Quite regularly, kids get shot in the US at
school. Do you think the same would still happen when people who want to
have and use arms were required to demonstrate some basic skills and
rightful intent?
> > And isn't it true that conflicting rights must
> > always be carefully balanced?
>
> I don't think there is any such thing as conflicting rights.
So you think that exercising one's rights never limits the rights of others?
That the rights we have and use should not be limited by the rights of
others? That there is no priority of some rights over others? Come on ...
this simplistic picture cannot be your real and only idea of rights.
Getting back to the original topic: You don't think that the Middle East
conflict is all about conflicting rights of Israelis vs. Palestines?
<SARCASM ON>
Well, if most US-Americans think like you do, THAT would explain a lot of
the inappropriate (to say the least) portions of US foreign policy. I firmly
believe, that no one has the right to define good and bad. This always has
to be a consensus of society. Now, there is no real worldwide society, which
makes things harder ... sometimes, it seems, not for the US, because they of
course know what is good and bad, and consequently ignore even the minimum
consensus of worldwide legislation. This of course makes it hard to stand up
against "international terrorism", without losing international credibility.
But then, what does a superpower need credibility for ...
<SARCASM OFF>
Greetings
Horst
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Well actually, I would have argued that we ought to have the right to drive. But since Richard pointed out that we do, the point is rather moot. (...) First of all, I don't know that it is. I just spent about a half hour trying to find those (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) It wasn't exactly rhetorical...I don't know for sure what's legal in all the European nations. But, if it requires "special permission" then it's a priviledge, not a right. (...) Absolutely. The citizens of the US do not have a right to drive. (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
173 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
