Another right may bite the dust

[Gypsiyee]

In general, actually. Regardless of what religious men wrote, it was man who granted those rights (via binding text, not figuratively) and man who can take them away. This is why these rights are not a constant in all countries - if it was a higher power that granted us the right to be free, I'd be curious to hear why you feel that right is exclusive to just a fraction of the world.

The flaw in your response, however nicely summarized, is that this whole discussion started with a statement from Lueyen that Tikker doesn't understand that our (americans) rights are given to us by the creator.

As far as Tikker backing you up, keep in mind that the general base concepts on which the United States was founded are foreign to him (yes pun intended), he doesn't get that our rights are not granted by government but ordained by our creator.

This was the initial statement I questioned - this particular statement is being said exclusive to the United States, so the blanket that we're talking about rights granted to everyone doesn't factor in.

[Eziekial]

He was talking about Tikker (don't you read posts anymore?) and explained that earilier that his comment was based on previous Tik posts and was not a blanket statement about foreigners so stop cluttering up this topic with fruitless efforts to argue your wonderful ability to view and embrace a borderless world. The US is the only country to experiment with true freedom and we've managed to fuck it up in less than 200 years. We will eventually succumb to the pressures of a selected group having control over the masses.

[Tikker]

The US is the only country to experiment with true freedom

sure you were sparky

[Gypsiyee]

He was talking about Tikker (don't you read posts anymore?) and explained that earilier that his comment was based on previous Tik posts and was not a blanket statement about foreigners so stop cluttering up this topic with fruitless efforts to argue your wonderful ability to view and embrace a borderless world. The US is the only country to experiment with true freedom and we've managed to fuck it up in less than 200 years. We will eventually succumb to the pressures of a selected group having control over the masses.

I know that he was talking about Tikker...I explicitly said he was talking about Tikker...

I'm not sure what you're even talking about with the borderless world thing. Who was talking about foreigners? Lueyen said something exclusive to the US, Min said something relative to all people who walk the globe, and I said that they were on two differnet topics based on that. Do you read posts anymore..?

[Eziekial]

Not after that post. But I'm tired of this thread, I'm tired of this board. I assumed you had gotten the previous point but obviously you didn't which is fine. Maybe I'm too cranky from the lack of any true debate here. In any case, I'm not coming back to this thread. If you want my opinion or need clarification on a post then ask me in a PM.
-Ez

[Harrison]

Your first mistake was expecting logic from a chick under 40.

[Lueyen]

One thing I am curious about Gypsiyee is if you think the concept is lunatic only in application to firearms or in general?

In general, actually. Regardless of what religious men wrote, it was man who granted those rights (via binding text, not figuratively) and man who can take them away. This is why these rights are not a constant in all countries - if it was a higher power that granted us the right to be free, I'd be curious to hear why you feel that right is exclusive to just a fraction of the world.

I believe this is the part that Minrott was addressing in talking about areas outside of the United States. In the first few paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence, you will find exactly what the drafters and signers prescribed for a people who's rights were trampled by government, indeed that was the purpose of it, a formal statement of purpose and the reasons for the actions taken. That oppressed people have not as of yet successfully thrown off oppressive governments does not in anyway invalidate the concept. It is not that governments chose to only grant them certain rights, it is that at some point people allowed these rights to be taken from them in exchange for something, be it security, wealth, or even their very lives.

Believe as you wish that rights were granted by men, but realize that this was not the view held by our founding fathers, and is directly contrary to the principals this country was founded on and still operates under today.

[Gypsiyee]

I agree with everything you said in your first paragraph.

I don't believe that the rights were granted by men - I believe that they were officiated, clarified, and validated by men (which is why I stated the "via binding text" thing.) I believe heartily in the constitution, and I respect that you have a very rigid belief in it as well. My only disagreement was that, from my understanding of your wording, our rights granted by "the creator" are exclusive to the US.

That's why I asked for clarification - to me it sounded like you were saying God (figurative) granted Americans the right to bear arms (and every other right listed in these documents.) I simply don't agree with that logic is all.

By nature's law we would have basically infinite freedom.. it was these documents that regulated and put the stamp of approval on certain rights exclusive to the country these men were founding.

This was what I disagreed with you on - on a wide scale, every person everywhere has every imaginable right by whatever creator there may be. My understanding of what you said was that the creator granted our (US citizens) rights. This isn't exclusive to the US, and the knowledge of that wouldn't be restricted because someone doesn't understand US principles.