There is no universal RIGHT to defend yourself.

[crudos]

I was reading a discussion on FB this afternoon, and this gem of a quote came up, "There is no universal RIGHT to defend yourself."

I was floored that someone would actually say this. If you have no right to defend yourself, then what is the point of life? I don't get into insulting people, but this was a moronic, at best, comment.

[Reaver]

I was reading a discussion on FB this afternoon, and this gem of a quote came up, "There is no universal RIGHT to defend yourself."

I was floored that someone would actually say this. If you have no right to defend yourself, then what is the point of life? I don't get into insulting people, but this was a moronic, at best, comment.

Sounds like good ole. Reaver and redneck raping combo needs to visit his wife. 

[CrookedSights]

Did you respond to his comment? And did he defend his position?  [img]http://www.arrse.co.uk/at

[JohnyMac]

Well in the UK it is considered Assault if you defend property.

[CrookedSights]

It seems it's a crime to defend fellows students from a gunman here. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/02/high-school-student-disarms-gunman-gets-suspended/  If that's the thanks you get I'd just drop the fuck out.

[crudos]

Did you respond to his comment? And did he defend his position?  [img]http://www.arrse.co.uk/at

I did, and no, he didn't respond, yet. I would be interested to hear his defense of the comment. Will post it here if and when.

[CrookedSights]

If he doesn't defend his comment you gotta have a little respect for guy for practicing what he preaches. I'm just glad I don't have idiots like this in my life or they're just not open about it.

[crudos]

Responses so far.....

- True or false. Does the Universe care about you? I'm talking about from a physics standpoint. Please -- show me something concrete (a belief in a possible deity doesn't count) that proves that natural law grants any rights to anyone.


- Response from another person: You have a false premise in your question, in that our natural rights arise from our collective understanding about what each of us can do, as a matter of right. The universe is not an actor granting rights.

*Names removed to protect the idiotic.

[mountainredneck2051]

I was reading a discussion on FB this afternoon, and this gem of a quote came up, "There is no universal RIGHT to defend yourself."

I was floored that someone would actually say this. If you have no right to defend yourself, then what is the point of life? I don't get into insulting people, but this was a moronic, at best, comment.

Sounds like good ole. Reaver and redneck raping combo needs to visit his wife. 

it isn't rape if you yell surprise first

[JohnyMac]

Universal law: You approach baby bear and moma bear kick the shit out of you.

[JohnyMac]

Yes Walker, I agree whole heartedly (Spelling) in your writing and to put it simply (Because I am a simple man), "Universal law: You approach baby bear and moma bear kick the shit out of you."

We have a natural sense to not crap in our nest; not propreciate with our mothers, fathers or siblings and to protect our families.

In the snow outside our house this morning there were canine tracks in the snow over 3" across. So I knew they were not coyote tracks but a bigger critter. I texted the farmer across the street asking if his Newfoundland 'Snickers' was loose (Dumbest dog I have ever met) and he texted me no. So this immediately put me on guard and have been cautious when I went outside for wood and what not since.

This is natural or universal law. I am worried and taking precautions to not meet said 3" plus canine critter without appropriate firepower when I go out side for wood, water or get the mail. 
 

[CrookedSights]

    Basically this is how I see it, if a pride of lions can defend its kill from encroaching hyenas, then I can also defend my property from scavengers out looking for a free lunch. If a bison can defend itself from a pack of wolves, then I too can defend my life from a pack of wolves of the human breed. If the animal kingdom can accept property rights and the right to life, without the field mouse going around saying "You can't do that!". Then why can't we? It happens in nature, you can't change nature. At the end of the day mankind are animals not only that but predators no less, and are still subject to the laws of nature.

[1000meterstare]

Walker, you forgot to address the other natural law (which self-preservation) is a big part of:  EQUILIBRIUM.  Everything in nature whether it is temperature, pressure, etc strives toward that end.  A bad person attempting to deprive you or others life or liberty upset that balance and defending yourself and your family is the only way to preserve that balance. 

[1000meterstare]

Faith:  The substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen.  Next dictionary question?

[JohnyMac]

So when a Progressive tells you that the U.S. Bill of Rights was given to you by man not by divine providence; pull up the arguments you have all made, on this subject.

I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.
II:
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.
III:
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered
in any house, without the consent of the owner,
nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law.
IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital,
or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except
in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in
the militia, when in actual service in time of war
or public danger; nor shall any person be subject
for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy
of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.
VI:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury of the state and district wherein
the crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have been previously ascertained by
law, and to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and
to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
VII:
In suits at common law, where the value in
controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right
of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact
tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined
in any court of the United States, than according
to the rules of the common law.
VIII:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive
fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted.
IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people.
X:
The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
to the people.

Isn't it amazing how far we have swerved off of the road called "The Bill of Rights", for a supposed heightened sense of security.  [img]http://www.arrse.co.uk/at

 
 

[NOLA556]

at the risk of pissing off some of you fine gentlemen, I actually agree with the FB dude's statement, however, not in the same context as I assume he meant it.

for you religious folk out there, you believe that we do indeed have rights, and the creator gave them to us directly. I may disagree, but I also respect that view immensely.

that being said, being the heathen that I am, I don't believe in rights. what we have IMHO is a set of privileges written down on a piece of parchment by some very wise men a couple hundred years ago. rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. they're temporary privileges. while I wouldn't change anything in the Bill of Rights because I think it's dead-on-target (except maybe to word them a little more specifically so as to prevent any "interpretation issues" in the future), to me, it's still just a man-made piece of paper, with some man-made ideas written on it.

seriously guys, think about it. the only "rights" you have are the ones that the democratic majority of our society agree that you should have.

consider this: if the brainwashed masses willingly voted away their constitutional "god-given" rights, would god strike them down for infringing on His rights that he gave to us? would there be any punishment at all for those responsible for the infringements? no. at least no divinely-inspired punishments.

now, before you ladies get your panties in a twist.... consider this viewpoint:

I don't NEED the "right" to defend myself. because that would imply that someone somewhere has the authority to grant me that "right", or not to. I will defend myself when necessary regardless of anyone else's perception of what my "rights" are.

I know this isn't what the lib turd on FB meant, but it's my .02 on the issue.

[JohnyMac]

NOLA, points well taken.

Just keep in mind that the right to defend ones self and family is part of genes. It is a natural given right.

But to your point: In the UK you are not allowed to defend property at all using "battery" or lethal means and you are only allowed to use similar means of defending you or family if attacked, e.g. if a intruder attacks you with a bat, you can only use up to a bat...Not a knife as that is one step above a bat.

Although your genes tells you to kill an intruder in your house, the law states you can not.

My panties are not in a twist 
   

[NOLA556]

like I said JM, man-made ideas. we have our list of man-made ideas, those euro-wusses have theirs.

that still doesn't change the fact that the individual, regardless what arbitrary geographical borders they happen to reside in, is the ultimate decider of what their rights are. now, depending on what a particular individual decides as it pertains to their rights, they may or may not attract the attention of men with fancy uniforms intoxicated by the notion of authority granted by the "collective".

anyway, to put it in more simple terms, my only point is that god is not going to stop a pig law enforcement officer from kicking my door down at 0'dark-thirty. only I, as an individual, can do something about that. "rights", as they are commonly understood in our present-day American culture, are an illusion.

it's actually kind of ironic that of all people, preppers tend to jaw on and on about rights, more so than other groups. we prep for the breakdown of the system, or the "world as we know it". we prep to protect ourselves against people who would attempt to infringe on our RIGHTS by forcibly taking what we have, in times of crisis. you'd think that my view on rights would be more common in the prepper community. i mean, why prep if you have rights? by it's very definition, a right cannot be taken away. therefore, all those Japs that our loving government detained in camps during WWII never had any rights in the first place. the Branch Dividians never had any rights in the first place. they had privileges granted by the collective, and their privileges were revoked pending the circumstances of their condition.

instead of "infringement of my rights", isn't it a little more realistic to say "revocation of my privileges"?

I'm not just being a nazi about labels and terminology, I'm actually trying to define what exactly it is that we feel and believe about our existence here as Americans, and whether or not the "American dream" is an illusion.

[JohnyMac]

All good stuff NOLA.

Man can always infringe on our natural rights and/ or what God gave us. However, evil always looses in the end.

O-Kay we need to have an old time rendezvous like the buck skinners use to have in the early 1800's.

We can have shooten competitions; Hawk and knife throwing competitions too. But most important, we can all sit around a camp fire with an adult beverage of our choice and discuss these heady topics.

Who has some land in the middle of the country we can rendezvous on? My BOL is open however it is quite a horse ride for some of you folks out west.

[NOLA556]

All good stuff NOLA.

Man can always infringe on our natural rights and/ or what God gave us. However, evil always looses in the end.

O-Kay we need to have an old time rendezvous like the back skinners use to have in the early 1800's.

We can have shooten competitions; Hawk and knife throwing competitions too. But most important, we can all sit around a camp fire with an adult beverage of our choice and discuss these heady topics.

Who has some land in the middle of the country we can rendezvous on? My BOL is open however it is quite a horse ride for some of you folks out west.

DUDE i'm down for sure. that would kick ass.

[NOLA556]

You are also correct, in a way, NOLA.  But I am unsure what you use to define a "right".  We may be talking about different things.

What is a "right"?  I would define it as that which is regarded as "morally good, justified, or acceptable".  This is applicable to the relationship among humans, and to ourselves.

Societies, tribes, families, individuals can certainly infringe (limit, or even take away) the ability of others to exercise those rights, but they will maintain them among themselves... so they still exist.

Your concept of "divinely-inspired punishments" is much different than mine.  You may envision an instantaneous bolt of lightning on a sunny day coming down to punish those who do not follow His direction.  I envision more severe punishments of long lasting suffering, disorder, strife, and of a society that will be unsustainable in the long term.  These are things brought onto ourselves, via our free will.  Of course there is also the eternal suffering in store beyond this world, but that may be a concept you are not ready to accept, but I believe you will at one point or another...

You actually do need the society around you to accept the act of defending yourself as justified, this is a "right", or else their punishment will be to kill/imprison/eject you.  You also have your own consciousness to face, as only the insane can kill/harm another human without justification to their self... or the sense of guilt will be the severe punishment.  (this is how the Watchmaker designed us)

I think, for the most part, we're on the same page. I was only pointing out that people have this notion of inalienable rights, as if there's some universal force protecting them based on a set of rules. Even morality is subjective to the society that defines it.

I'd also point out that the "need" for society to accept self defense (or any other right for that matter), is not a need at all, but a luxury. societal acceptance merely means that your life will be easier, meaning, your life is far less difficult when your views happen to align with the views of those around you. however, that's merely an observation. it still doesn't prove anything about real rights. it still leaves you at the mercy of men, and whatever it is that those men deem acceptable and unacceptable.

[1000meterstare]

While running the risk of oversimplifying things, how about this:  You have natural rights as sentient, SELF-AWARE beings.

[CrookedSights]

While running the risk of oversimplifying things, how about this:  You have natural rights as sentient, SELF-AWARE beings.

I completely agree, however then you have to have the whole who and what are sentient, self-aware beings debate. Are dolphins or Apes? Some already say yes. What about when E.T. knocks on your door, is he on the same equal grounds as you? In E.T.'s case I would argue yes.