The more a country moves away from total freedom of speech the more oppression and death - the more a country moves away from freedom of gun ownership the less death
The more a country moves away from total freedom of speech the more oppression and death - the more a country moves away from freedom of gun ownership the less death
JAMES
EnjoyingWARM
sunny Aussie weather
Be yourself,be proud, be FREE, be natural - It's the natural way to be - a NATURIST
It is a gun rights inspired question. I think the question is interesting all by itself, but I am inspired by anti gun people who think that freedom should be abridged or abolished to save lives. I heard Sen. Howard Metzenbaum say once that some anti gun law would be worth it "if it saved just one life". It makes me wonder what they would think about applying the same logic to other freedoms. The US lost 416,000 people in WW II defending liberty, or so we were told that was what the fight was over. And then we turn around and toss out liberty to save one life? Do we really value liberty? Perhaps we don't. Do we just value the liberties that we actually use, and someone elses's liberty be damned?
So far, I've got one for tossing out the liberty to save 43 lives, and one for letting everyone die before we let go of liberty.
Legalize Freedom!
Legalize Freedom!
Screaming "Liberty" and "Freedom' sounds wonderful but what do these words really mean?? They, of course mean different things to different people. To some, with 'freedom' and 'liberty' come 'responsibility' and 'respect'. The words 'freedom' and 'liberty' do not mean that anyone can do anything under the alleged umbrella definition of these words.
Really??
The Constitution was written on paper. Amendments to the Constitution, which are now considered to be part of the Constitution, have ESTABLISHED (or provided) rights that did not exist previously, such as women and blacks having the right to vote. All of the amendments, which includes the Bill of Rights, are certainly written on pieces of paper.
Forget the Constitution? OK. If that's the way you feel, then don't use it to try and back up any position that you want to take.
You are correct. My statement was a little too generalized. There are a few rights, like your example, that are called "synthetic rights", that have been created. But our "natural rights", as described by John Locke, are infinite in extent. James Madison, for a time, argued against having a Bill of Rights, because he thought it would imply that we had no other rights. So he came up with the Ninth Amendment to correct that problem. That plan seems to have been a failure...
Forget it for this thread.Forget the Constitution? OK. If that's the way you feel, then don't use it to try and back up any position that you want to take.
Last edited by Skinview; 08-23-2012 at 05:09 PM.
Legalize Freedom!
You definition requires an explanation of what it means to 'harm' someone. You definition also does not take into consideration 'harming' the environment or plants or animals. For example, cutting down all of the giant redwood trees in California technically harms no one person, but it does destroy the environment and therefore there is no such 'liberty' to cut down the redwoods.
Given that human population is constantly increasing and less and less free and isolated space is availible, what was considered harmless in the past is definitely not harmless today. It is therefore a natural consequence to have ever decreasing 'liberty' as a direct result of ever increasing human population growth.
Also, given that just about everything that a person does today harms someone or something, true 'liberty' is really a thing of the past.