Guns

[Kent]

Thank you. I simply hoped that you'd expand on your brief statement which you did, if with dudgeon.

You clearly think that the method in which a gun ensures the concept of life and liberty while not removing life or liberty on the process is self-evident. I find it otherwise.

How do you actually use the gun to ensure life or liberty without removing life or liberty? Give me an example where a gun does that, beginning to end.

Obviously you just skipped over my post without giving it much thought.

The Holocaust victim escorting a live nazi at gun point answered your question before you asked it.
Of course, exorcet didn't exactly have a hard time find contemporary examples of an answer to your challenge either.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Obviously you just skipped over my post without giving it much thought.

The Holocaust victim escorting a live nazi at gun point answered your question before you asked it.
Of course, exorcet didn't exactly have a hard time find contemporary examples of an answer to your challenge either.

No, a setup photograph showing a well-fed suntanned prisoner shooting a well-fed fat suntanned guard with a fake Hitler Youth Armband demonstrated that people genuinely resort to 'meaningful' imagery in order to avoid making a point. And it tries to portray somebody about to use a gun to take a life.

Yet I'm the one answering without thought when you produce such a glib return?

Will you give your answer sum thought or are we agreeing that you won't/can't/shan't answer?

My question was "How do you actually use the gun to ensure life or liberty without removing life or liberty? Give me an example where a gun does that, beginning to end."

 

[Zenith]

No, a setup photograph showing a well-fed suntanned prisoner shooting a well-fed fat suntanned guard with a fake Hitler Youth Armband demonstrated that people genuinely resort to 'meaningful' imagery in order to avoid making a point. And it tries to portray somebody about to use a gun to take a life

Where is it said that the gun is being used to execute the prisoner? The Holocaust victim is holding an accomplice to an injustice as a prisoner until justice can be administered from a legal authority. He doesn't have to kill the soldier.

The guns gives him power in this situation. There is no injustice or removal of life necessary.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Where is it said that the gun is being used to execute the prisoner?

You need to do what I did and misread what @Kent wrote as "execute" instead of "escort". That's all. Oops

The guns gives him power in this situation. There is no injustice or removal of life necessary.

So the prisoner is free to go, he has his liberty?

And what do you mean by "the gun gives him power"? Why not use a very impressive turnip, or a juicy bream?

 

[Kent]

You need to do what I did and misread what @Kent wrote as "execute" instead of "escort". That's all. Oops





So the prisoner is free to go, he has his liberty?

And what do you mean by "the gun gives him power"? Why not use a very impressive turnip, or a juicy bream?

The fact you'd say a Nazi war criminal has or deserves his liberty puts this conversation to an end for me (not to mention the write-it-off-as-staged excuse for dealing with what could be the pinnacle of guns being used to preserve liberty rather than deny it).

If you want to continue, just address the videos posted by exorcet.

 

[Zenith]

So the prisoner is free to go, he has his liberty?

Liberty does not mean you are exempt from being held accountable for your actions. The Nazi soldier was a member of a government which did great injustices and the soldier likely performed injustices himself. The soldier is being arrested much like a criminal would be arrested in preparation for a trial.

And what do you mean by "the gun gives him power"? Why not use a very impressive turnip, or a juicy bream?

Because neither of those can stop the other party from carrying out their will as well as a gun does. The power in this case lies in the hands of a person who will (hopefully) turn the accused over to a justice system. Guns are used very often to preserve the rights of the innocent against the wills of the malicious.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The fact you'd say a Nazi war criminal has or deserves his liberty puts this conversation to an end for me (not to mention the write-it-off-as-staged excuse for dealing with what could be the pinnacle of guns being used to preserve liberty rather than deny it)

He's not a Nazi, I'm not sure what about that photograph makes you think he could be. He's something like wehrmacht, probably a conscript.

You're still missing the point and making a "justice" call. Ignore justice and get to answering the statment; guns exists to remove life or liberty.

The picture shows someone having their liberty restricted (I'm with you - shoot him!), but they're having it restricted with a gun... which is the point you said you wanted to counter.

Presumably escape (or the ultimate result of the capture) results in execution, the removal of life. Again, the justice of the situation is unimportant - you're not countering "guns exist to remove life or liberty" with that example, you're actually reinforcing it.

Liberty does not mean you are exempt from being held accountable for your actions.

I absolutely agree, I'd never say it did.

The Nazi soldier was a member of a government which did great injustices and the soldier likely performed injustices himself.

That's a mixture of poor history and judgement, that soldier isn't a Nazi by any means and Nazi soldiers were only members of government at the highest ranks. Likely he did perform injustices, probably with the threat of execution in the same way my own grandfather killed innocent men, against his beliefs, for the Allies because he would have been executed otherwise.

Because neither of those can stop the other party from carrying out their will as well as a gun does.

Removing their liberty. Remember we're not talking now about Constitutional "Liberty", actual liberty, the freedom to come and go and act as one pleases in the norm.

The gun stops them because it offers the threat of being killed. That's why people surrender their liberty beneath the barrel.

I quite agree about the fact that guns are used to propogate justice; but the statement I made was simply that "guns exist to remove life or liberty". That's all, justice belongs elsewhere and isn't referenced in that statement.

 

[Exorcet]

The picture shows someone having their liberty restricted (I'm with you - shoot him!), but they're having it restricted with a gun... which is the point you said you wanted to counter.

Presumably escape (or the ultimate result of the capture) results in execution, the removal of life. Again, the justice of the situation is unimportant - you're not countering "guns exist to remove life or liberty" with that example, you're actually reinforcing it.

Death from the picture is a wild assumption.

There is no restriction of liberty given that the person on the ground threw away liberty himself by siding with the side he did. Even a good person might do such a thing, but the result is the same "what I want first".

So the gun is not killing, but serving as a deterrent and there is no liberty to take away. If you want to talk actually liberty, the person is free to go. If you want to talk about acting in the norm, I don't know where this is going when the person in question is [in]directly supporting the death of millions.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Death from the picture is a wild assumption.

There is no restriction of liberty given that the person on the ground threw away liberty himself by siding with the side he did

Read the point I made in the previous answer. We're not looking at this in US legalese, we're talking about normal liberty. The right to come and go and act as you please in the norm.

If it comes down to "who do you assume is the criminal" in the picture then my judgement would side with yours, without the obvious fakeries evident in it.

It doesn't, it comes down to "guns exist to remove life or liberty". The gun in that photograph is removing liberty by offering the threat of removing life.

 

[Exorcet]

Read the point I made in the previous answer. We're not looking at this in US legalese, we're talking about normal liberty. The right to come and go and act as you please in the norm.

I know, I'm not in the rights = law camp though.

it comes down to "guns exist to remove life or liberty".

It doesn't since guns do infinitely more than this, are made for infinitely more than this, and are desired for infinitely more than this. About all you can claim along that line is the first gun was made by someone who wanted to kill maybe. OK. Has nothing to do with gun #2 or beyond.

The gun in that photograph is removing liberty by offering the threat of removing life.

Fundamentally, the person at gunpoint threw away liberty. In the norm, this is the difference between being held captive and put in jail.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I know, I'm not in the rights = law camp though.

I know, and from that I presume you're American. Only Americans and Iranians think their national law somehow expands to all humankind without any obvious reason to believe it. The rest of us certainly don't

It doesn't since guns do infinitely more than this, are made for infinitely more than this, and are desired for infinitely more than this. About all you can claim along that line is the first gun was made by someone who wanted to kill maybe. OK. Has nothing to do with gun #2 or beyond.

It's a good while before you get to "showpiece" guns, but I agree that plenty of guns are made for show, or sport, or non-lethal activities. But that's a function of guns already existing.

Guns as a whole concept...their raison d'etre is to remove life or liberty.

Fundamentally, the person at gunpoint threw away liberty. In the norm, this is the difference between being held captive and put in jail.

You did it again, you applied the idea of justice and law. And I don't see how he threw away liberty by being at gunpoint though, his liberty is restricted by the dude pointing the gun.

 

[Danoff]

The gun in that photograph is removing liberty by offering the threat of removing life.

His actions removed his own right to liberty (and possibly life), not the gun. The gun is being used to ensure that he doesn't do it again. The gun can't remove his (or anyone's) rights, only his actions can. To understand this point you need to understand human rights.

Guns can be used to preserve rights by incarcerating people who have forfeit them, and guns can be used to infringe rights - they cannot be used to remove rights.

 

[Exorcet]

I know, and from that I presume you're American. Only Americans and Iranians think their national law somehow expands to all humankind without any obvious reason to believe it. The rest of us certainly don't

All joking aside, I just want to point out it's actually the opposite.

It's a good while before you get to "showpiece" guns, but I agree that plenty of guns are made for show, or sport, or non-lethal activities. But that's a function of guns already existing.

Guns as a whole concept...their raison d'etre is to remove life or liberty.

It's not so simple. All we can say is the first gun was made by someone who wanted to kill (maybe). It didn't have to be that way. If the first gun maker was a would-be murderer, removing life happens to be by chance what lead to the invention of the gun in this timeline. But that's completely trivial.

You did it again, you applied the idea of justice and law. And I don't see how he threw away liberty by being at gunpoint though, his liberty is restricted by the dude pointing the gun.

What Danoff said. Being at gun point didn't take away his liberty, his actions did and this is the result. I'd agree the gun is probably going to make him hesitate to commit more crimes, yet at the same time he's not dead. Extrapolate a bit and 50 years later guns could have the same effect even if there isn't one in sight anywhere and the man regained his rights by refusing to commit more crimes.

 

[TenEightyOne]

His actions removed his own right to liberty (and possibly life), not the gun. The gun is being used to ensure that he doesn't do it again. The gun can't remove his (or anyone's) rights, only his actions can. To understand this point you need to understand human rights.

Guns can be used to preserve rights by incarcerating people who have forfeit them, and guns can be used to infringe rights - they cannot be used to remove rights.

Nope, not talking about rights, in your view of them you extend that which is socially or legally born and try to apply it as an electrical rule for hosting. That isn't appropriate or correct and isn't actually how the machine works - try to get over the idea of rights as a physical method or property of this host, they just aren't.

Liberty, outside the legal definition, is simply coming and going. The man in the picture is clearly what we'd consider "a prisoner" without us having to weigh the balance. His liberty is therefore being limited or removed.

All joking aside, I just want to point out it's actually the opposite.

Er, not really, not at all.

It's not so simple. All we can say is the first gun was made by someone who wanted to kill (maybe). It didn't have to be that way. If the first gun maker was a would-be murderer, removing life happens to be by chance what lead to the invention of the gun in this timeline. But that's completely trivial.

That seems quite a naive argument, you're also confusing the chance of invention with the purpose of commission. Nobel. Nuff said.

I'd agree the gun is probably going to make him hesitate to commit more crimes,

You're both skirting the point because you seem unable to realise that the American definition of "right" as you so doggedly try to re-explain it to the rest of the world... is an illusion. It stems from the DoI and BoR, that's why it's part of the national consciousness. The same is
true of our Magna Carta. That's where our rights and notion of them stem.

So, why will the gun make him hesitate? In case they make him spend all wednesday afternoon watching target practice?

 

[LeMansAid]

What?!! When did rights come in to it? Even if his actions removed his rights to liberty, the gun is what is removing his liberty in reality. He cannot do as he chooses because there is a gun pointed at him. The question I read has nothing to do with rights, other uses for guns, law, fairness, justice. I read: Can a gun ensure life and liberty without removing life and liberty?

It may well be a pointless question, but the question is what it is.

 

[Danoff]

Nope, not talking about rights, in your view of them you extend that which is socially or legally logically born

FTFY

and try to apply it as an electrical rule for hosting.

It's not a rule, you're free to violate rights.

That isn't appropriate or correct and isn't actually how the machine works - try to get over the idea of rights as a physical method or property of this host, they just aren't.

They are definitely not a physical method or physical property of anything, correct.

Liberty, outside the legal definition, is simply coming and going. The man in the picture is clearly what we'd consider "a prisoner" without us having to weigh the balance. His liberty is therefore being limited or removed.

Limiting the liberties of someone who has no respect for them is a good thing - it's how we preserve liberty for those who have a right to it.

The question, posed as it makes any sense, is whether or not guns can only be used to infringe rights to life and liberty. The answer to the question (posed as it makes sense) is no, guns can also be used to protect the right to life and liberty.

What?!! When did rights come in to it? Even if his actions removed his rights to liberty, the gun is what is removing his liberty in reality. He cannot do as he chooses because there is a gun pointed at him. The question I read has nothing to do with rights, other uses for guns, law, fairness, justice. I read: Can a gun ensure life and liberty without removing life and liberty?

It may well be a pointless question, but the question is what it is.

See above.

 

[LeMansAid]

Limiting the liberties of someone who has no respect for them is a good thing

No relevance to the question posed.

To me, there is no point in asking the question. The thing that interests me now is seeing yet again another seized opportunity to preach the religion rather than deal with a question without augmentation or doctoring.

 

[Zenith]

He's not a Nazi, I'm not sure what about that photograph makes you think he could be. He's something like wehrmacht, probably a conscript.

That's a mixture of poor history and judgement, that soldier isn't a Nazi by any means and Nazi soldiers were only members of government at the highest ranks. Likely he did perform injustices, probably with the threat of execution in the same way my own grandfather killed innocent men, against his beliefs, for the Allies because he would have been executed otherwise.

He is still fighting for the interests of the Nazi's, but yes let's expand on this a bit. The Allies should have just gone to each soldier they captured and asked "Hey, were you a real Nazi fighting for the Nazi agenda and committing injustices, or a fake Nazi still fighting for the Nazi agenda and committing injustices? If it's the second we'll let you go."

Sure would've sped up those Nuremburg Trials...

Man commits injustice, man is handed over to justice system to receive judgement. The only rights that are violated are the rights that the man violated to commit said injustice. It is a good thing that this man's liberty is being taken away from him. Say otherwise and you are arguing that people should not have to take responsibility for their actions.

You're still missing the point and making a "justice" call. Ignore justice and get to answering the statment; guns exists to remove life or liberty.

Saying it over and over doesn't negate the fact that you have had evidence to the contrary. You're still wrong.

The picture shows someone having their liberty restricted (I'm with you - shoot him!), but they're having it restricted with a gun... which is the point you said you wanted to counter.

He forfeited his liberty when he committed injustices, that's how this stuff works. That's why rapists go to prison, that's why it is morally permissible to stop somebody who is violating your rights. Personal rights end where another person's rights begin.

Presumably escape (or the ultimate result of the capture) results in execution, the removal of life. Again, the justice of the situation is unimportant - you're not countering "guns exist to remove life or liberty" with that example, you're actually reinforcing it.

Once again, no. The gun is being used to enforce justice and preserve the rights of those who haven't committed injustice and thus forfeited their rights.

I absolutely agree, I'd never say it did.

You most certainly did. You said that he would have liberty if he was free to go. He forfeited his liberty. He does not deserve to be free to go.

Removing their liberty. Remember we're not talking now about Constitutional "Liberty", actual liberty, the freedom to come and go and act as one pleases in the norm.

The gun stops them because it offers the threat of being killed. That's why people surrender their liberty beneath the barrel.

Once again, you forfeit that liberty when you commit injustices. This is the very concept of justice. You are suggesting anarchy. Hey I know I killed all those people but you're violating my liberty by holding me accountable for my actions, dude! Not cool!

I quite agree about the fact that guns are used to propogate justice; but the statement I made was simply that "guns exist to remove life or liberty". That's all, justice belongs elsewhere and isn't referenced in that statement.

And it's still wrong...

Honestly that's like saying a supercharger exists to suck power away from the engine.

The gun in this situation is taking away the ability of that soldier to run away. If this soldier was able to run away he would be free to continue serving injustice to other people. You have taken one person's freedom of movement away in order to preserve the freedoms and liberties of people who haven't already committed injustice. The net effect is positive.

 

[Danoff]

No relevance to the question posed.

It's totally relevant to the question posed. I know you're rolling your eyes, but pause for a moment and consider. The purpose of imprisoning someone is not to remove their liberty or remove their life. The purpose of imprisoning someone is to preserve the lives and liberties of others. That was the answer given.

To me, there is no point to asking the question. The thing that interests me now is seeing yet again another seized opportunity to preach the religion

If logic is a religion, everything is a religion*.


*I should say, if logic is also a religion. All that exists is the rational (logic) and the irrational (religion).

 

[TenEightyOne]

He is still fighting for the interests of the Nazi's, but yes let's expand on this a bit. The Allies should have just gone to each soldier they captured and asked "Hey, were you a real Nazi fighting for the Nazi agenda, or a fake Nazi still fighting for the Nazi agenda? If it's the second we'll let you go.

That's another topic, but yes, that's exactly what happened. Are you sure you know the difference between the Nazis, the rest of Germany, and all the other Axis members?

Man commits injustice, man is handed over to justice system to receive judgement. The only rights that are violated are the rights that the man violated to commit said injustice. It is a good thing that this man's liberty is being taken away from him. Say otherwise and you are arguing that people should not have to take responsibility for their actions.

Don't "do a Danoff" and start worrying about rights and justice in the normal context of liberty. Liberty exists without those things.

Apologies to Danoff, that's a genuinely friendly dig

You most certainly did. You said that he would have liberty if he was free to go. He forfeited his liberty. He does not deserve to be free to go.

"Deserve". That's a judgement. Try again.

Saying it over and over doesn't negate the fact that you have had evidence to the contrary. You're still wrong.

Sigh. You showed a picture steeped in judgement that demonstrated a gun removing liberty by threatening life. Then you tried to get out of it by pretending I asked about rights. I didn't.

Once again, no. The gun is being used to enforce justice and preserve the rights of those who haven't committed injustice and thus forfeited their rights.

You're really missing the point, dear. You're still talking about justice. Try to answer the point I made, not Danoff's.

FTFY

Grrr

I think you broke it because I hold that there are no rights outside the human condition, therefore they do not exist. They are certainly not part of our mechanical logic, they are only part of one type of philosophical logic. They are not part of the actual electrical logic that drives us.

Limiting the liberties of someone who has no respect for them is a good thing - it's how we preserve liberty for those who have a right to it.

It is, and it's a punitive element of society that is normally codified. And that goes to justice, which falls outside the idea of liberty in a context outside American definition. Liberty (without the attachment to notional "right") is restricted by guns because they represent a threat of the removal of life.

Using your definition of Liberty I agree that it becomes more complicated, but as you're binding right and justice up in that (as you have to in that peculiar case) then it's not an appropriate definition.

It's totally relevant to the question posed. I know you're rolling your eyes, but pause for a moment and consider. The purpose of imprisoning someone is not to remove their liberty or remove their life. The purpose of imprisoning someone is to preserve the lives and liberties of others. That was the answer given.

In your view the facts are restricted to that. In fact both sets of facts are true. This demonstrates that the "logic" you use is selective and incomplete which represents a subjective judgement call on your part... making the logic illogical.

You clearly have a passion for your pursuit to demonstrate that right is somehow part of logice... and it is in a very narrow philosophy... but you can't pull the real logical truths into that narrow framework and try to make it unnaturally fit your philosophy of it, you're ending up with an inside-out dancing pig.

 

[Zenith]

That's another topic, but yes, that's exactly what happened. Are you sure you know the difference between the Nazis, the rest of Germany, and all the other Axis members?

Are you actually this stupid or are you purposely failing to comprehend a single word that has been said to you in this thread?

Don't "do a Danoff" and start worrying about rights and justice in the normal context of liberty. Liberty exists without those things.

You're really missing the point, dear. You're still talking about justice. Try to answer the point I made, not Danoff's.

The discussion most certainly applies to rights and justice when you start talking about liberty. Liberty does not exist without responsibility.

The condescension would almost work if this puke of words you call an argument wasn't already the laughing stock of the Opinions Forum. Your understanding of rights, liberty, justice, and freedom is so backwards that it's below an elementary level understanding. Try again, "dear".

In other words, listen to people who are smarter than you. You can try to redefine concepts in the middle of an argument, you'll just look like an idiot.

"Deserve". That's a judgement. Try again.

Sigh. You showed a picture steeped in judgement that demonstrated a gun removing liberty by threatening life. Then you tried to get out of it by pretending I asked about rights. I didn't.

It is preserving the liberty of those who the soldier demonstrated he was willing to commit injustices against. Are you going to continue to ignore this point? Personally, I enjoy watching you tip-toe around the counter arguments that prove you wrong and hoping we haven't noticed. It hasn't worked.

 

[Danoff]

Sigh. You showed a picture steeped in judgement that demonstrated a gun removing liberty by threatening life. Then you tried to get out of it by pretending I asked about rights. I didn't.

I know this was aimed at Zenith but I can't help it.

It's not that anyone is pretending that you asked about rights, it's that rights are relevant to the answer you've been given. You asked if guns can do anything besides remove life or liberty, and the answer is yes, they can preserve life and liberty. To pretend that you can discuss that without talking about rights is to ignore the elephant in the room.

I think you broke it because I hold that there are no rights outside the human condition, therefore they do not exist.

So if some aliens agreed with me you'd change your mind? That doesn't seem like a strong position.

They are certainly not part of our mechanical logic, they are only part of one type of philosophical logic. They are not part of the actual electrical logic that drives us.

If you're talking about the neural electrical firings that move my fingers as I type this - you're totally right they're not part of that. Not sure how that changes anything though. They're not a physical mechanism, that doesn't make them any less real. Logic is not physical, and yet it applies to the physical.

It is, and it's a punitive element of society that is normally codified. And that goes to justice, which falls outside the idea of liberty in a context outside American definition. Liberty (without the attachment to notional "right") is restricted by guns because they represent a threat of the removal of life.

Why do we put prisoners in jail (using guns)? And I don't mean what is the justification, I mean why would we want to?

Using your definition of Liberty I agree that it becomes more complicated, but as you're binding right and justice up in that (as you have to in that peculiar case) then it's not an appropriate definition.

There are two ways to look at justice (as with almost all things) - subjective and objective.

 

[LeMansAid]

I think that TenEightyOne should very clearly and succinctly state/re-state the question. There's quite a mire of interpretation here.

For one thing, as far as I can tell, the liberty in question is the practical version.

 

[TenEightyOne]

rights are relevant to the answer you've been given...

And I feel they're not, as I just replied to Zenith.

If you're talking about the neural electrical firings that move my fingers as I type this - you're totally right they're not part of that. Not sure how that changes anything though. They're not a physical mechanism, that doesn't make them any less real. Logic is not physical, and yet it applies to the physical

No, logic as an agreed framework for assessing inputs and outputs and is defined subjectively to define an "objective" framework. That makes logic no more part of the neurosphere than rights.

Why do we put prisoners in jail (using guns)? And I don't mean what is the justification, I mean why would we want to?

Because you're in a society where guns are common and you may have to defend yourself. I'm presuming 'we' are LAOs and protected by Tennesse .vs. Garner. We need to be prepared to defend ourselves with like force. Ultimately we will use our gun to threaten to end the life of the person whose liberty we wish to infringe upon (or have been directed to infringe upon by A14 due process).

In Britain we wouldn't need a gun to do that, only in very exceptional circumstances and special officers who do have access to guns would be called.

There are two ways to look at justice (as with almost all things) - subjective and objective.

If you agree with the normal definition of liberty instead of the narrow legal-liberty-with-rights, you don't need to look at justice at all.

I've forgotten the question now.

I think that TenEightyOne should very clearly and succinctly state/re-state the question. There's quite a mire of interpretation here.

Ah, I remember! I said;

Guns only exist to remove life or liberty. Discuss. Ask the invigilator for extra bullets if you require them.

For the purposes of the statement I've gone on to be clear that I mean liberty in it's natural sense as "the scope to do or act as one pleases", not a DoI/BoR/Natural Rights definition of neo-Liberty.

 

[Danoff]

And I feel they're not, as I just replied to Zenith.

Feel being the operative word.

No, logic as an agreed framework for assessing inputs and outputs and is defined subjectively to define an "objective" framework. That makes logic no more part of the neurosphere than rights.

I honestly cannot make heads or tails out of this. Logic cannot be subjective - it would cease to be logic, it's in the definition.

Because you're in a society where guns are common and you may have to defend yourself. I'm presuming 'we' are LAOs and protected by Tennesse .vs. Garner. We need to be prepared to defend ourselves with like force. Ultimately we will use our gun to threaten to end the life of the person whose liberty we wish to infringe upon (or have been directed to infringe upon by A14 due process).

In Britain we wouldn't need a gun to do that, only in very exceptional circumstances and special officers who do have access to guns would be called.

So not what I asked, but I see how you got there. I was asking why we want to put criminals in jail, you answered why the US would want to use guns to do it. Nice try.

If you agree with the normal definition of liberty instead of the narrow legal-liberty-with-rights, you don't need to look at justice at all.

At that point I'd be missing the point though.

Guns only exist to remove life or liberty. Discuss. Ask the invigilator for extra bullets if you require them.

For the purposes of the statement I've gone on to be clear that I mean liberty in it's natural sense as "the scope to do or act as one pleases", not a DoI/BoR/Natural Rights definition of neo-Liberty.

...and that is wrong.

Guns also exist to preserve life and liberty - as captured in photograph form earlier and as explained to you main times.

 

[LeMansAid]

Guns also exist to preserve life and liberty - as captured in photograph form earlier and as explained to you main times.

The gun removes liberty. The removal of liberty preserves the liberty of an other(s).

 

[Exorcet]

Er, not really, not at all.

It certainly is. Law =/= rights. Whatever the law is, I don't think it's special. Rights are more important.

That seems quite a naive argument

Why?

you're also confusing the chance of invention with the purpose of commission. Nobel. Nuff said.

I don't think so.

You're both skirting the point because you seem unable to realise that the American definition of "right"

Why does America factor into the argument?

as you so doggedly try to re-explain it to the rest of the world... is an illusion. It stems from the DoI and BoR, that's why it's part of the national consciousness. The same is
true of our Magna Carta. That's where our rights and notion of them stem.

Our rights are exactly the same and proceed all the documents mentioned which are merely paper.

So, why will the gun make him hesitate? In case they make him spend all wednesday afternoon watching target practice?

Most likely fear of injury.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The gun removes liberty, the removal of liberty preserves the liberty of an other(s).

You beat me to it

I honestly cannot make heads or tails out of this. Logic cannot be subjective - it would cease to be logic, it's in the definition.

And how do you name the things in the logic, or what you're measuring, or what for, or when something is or isn't, or when its halfway, what the inputs are, what the outputs are. Those are subjective processes of reasoning based on previous theories, understandings or observations.

That subjective process defines an objective framework that, once validated, we use as 'logic'.

Logic = reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

We make logic to help describe our observations, it is not a pre-existing part of the organism. It is subjectively constructed to perform objective observation.

 

[LeMansAid]

Rights are more important.

So is my breakfast. But it'd be equally irrelevant to bring it up (pardon the pun) here.

 

[Exorcet]

So is my breakfast. But it'd be equally irrelevant to bring it up (pardon the pun) here.

I disagree

their national law somehow expands to all humankind

Since I don't think that at all.