SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neocon who wrote (11899)5/3/2002 7:58:51 PM
From: thames_sider  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 21057
 
There are basically two kinds of rights: claims we have on the government to do or forebear, and claims we have on private parties of a similar nature.

No, there is one and only kind of 'right'. The kind that whoever has power over you chooses to permit. It's a privilege. Unless you have power over whatever governs you, or it has allowed you latitude, you can't choose or change what you do.

The rest is semantics, and not relevant.

You have NO rights except what you are allowed. Think otherwise? try breathing water, then claim your 'right' to life. or move to North Korea and demonstrate your 'right' to bear weapons.

I'm not arguing ethics, btw. Nor am I disagreeing with those you've posted. But your exposition, admittedly worthy and valid, is still irrelevant to my point - as I predicted...
Message 17417282

Before all other rights, the right to defend yourself is paramount. The government cannot guarantee that degree of protection that would provide utter safety without becoming a police state, and trampling on our freedom in other areas.
Carry a gun if you wish. It's neither a 'right' of the universe nor required for survival, except as the presence of so many legally-armed maniacs requires.
As a non-criminal in a no-guns country, I'm less at risk of being shot (overall - barring rural variations, etc.) than you in yours, no matter how many guns you have.