CDZ Why do you own a gun?

[PratchettFan]

For the same reason I want to pray
For the same reason I want to be able to say what I want wherever I want
For the same reason I want the authorities to have a warrant to search my property

I am afforded these things as a law-abiding American.

You, as a European, however......not so much

You are more than welcome to fly to Mexico and walk to America and become a citizen at any time your heart desires

Correction. People are not given rights as law-abiding Americans. Rights are inalienable. Nobody can give them or take them away. Others may have the power to violate one's rights, but one still possesses said rights.

A convicted bank robber, sitting in a cell in prison, has the right to a gun?

For the same reason I want to pray
For the same reason I want to be able to say what I want wherever I want
For the same reason I want the authorities to have a warrant to search my property

I am afforded these things as a law-abiding American.

You, as a European, however......not so much

You are more than welcome to fly to Mexico and walk to America and become a citizen at any time your heart desires

Correction. People are not given rights as law-abiding Americans. Rights are inalienable. Nobody can give them or take them away. Others may have the power to violate one's rights, but one still possesses said rights.

A convicted bank robber, sitting in a cell in prison, has the right to a gun?

You're confusing Liberty and Individual Rights with Anarchy.

Check your premises, bub.

No, what I am doing is reading what you wrote. "Rights are inalienable. Nobody can give them or take them away." So I ask again, does a convict sitting in a prison cell have the right to a gun? Does he have the right to liberty? Because if not, then you are agreeing those rights can be take away. So perhaps you need to check your premises.

 

[PratchettFan]

The rights enumerated in the Bill of rights can be forfeited

Then they are not inalienable.

 

[PratchettFan]

Our inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Show me the law which states this.

 

[PratchettFan]

"A convicted bank robber, sitting in a cell in prison, has the right to a gun?"

Failing to understand how natural rights work, or failing to understand how criminals create criminal RULES (not natural laws) to be enforced by guilty criminals on innocent victims, is never going to change how natural rights still work, so long as nature enforces natural laws.

At the time when people recognized natural laws there was an idea called voluntary, agreeable, law, where people agreed to volunteer to recognized natural law, and if someone stepped outside of that voluntary agreement then those people volunteered to be criminals, by their actions, and if they refused an offer to return, to remedy, to trial by jury, or to any process by which restitution, remedy, regaining voluntary association with other volunteers, then said individual was considered outside the law, or an outlaw, and was therefore no longer volunteering to be defended by other people, so other people were not obligated (by other people) to defend the outlaw.

That may not be easy to understand, but it is the way it was, at least according to some information, such as the information assembled by Lysander Spooner in his Essay titled Trial by Jury. An outlaw was considered to be as people might consider a mad dog, or a wild man eating animal, or as a criminally insane, sociopathic, psychopath, and anyone who may kill or HOLD/CAPTURE/DETAIN said mad dog, or natural catastrophe, was not considered guilty of any crime, such as murder in cases where the outlaw was killed by someone agreeing to recognized natural laws, and not guilty of kidnapping (holding someone against their will) the insane, wild, animal, since someone inside the law cannot "kidnap" a natural catastrophe no more than someone inside the law can kidnap a wild, man eating, animal.

If a jury EVER decided to put someone in a prison of some kind, there would have to be a prison to put someone in. A cage, for outlaws, for wild animals, for the insane, for sociopaths, for psychopaths, or any other natural threat to innocent victims costs a lot of loot to maintain; so why build one? That only happens when the criminals take over government, and the criminals never run out of competitors who try to take over their TURF, and so when the criminals take over their first order of business is to cage all the competitors, and they (the criminals) set about doing what criminals always do, which is to inflict cruel and unusual (unnatural) punishment on those who threaten to compete (replace) their form of criminal take over of government.

Back to the question:

"A convicted bank robber, sitting in a cell in prison, has the right to a gun?"

In a land where the criminals took over at least as far back as 1787, those criminals who took over government (defensive, and according to natural laws agreed upon by volunteers) robbed the idea of banking, they are the bank robbers, they did so with The First Bank of the United States, which was a fraudulent extortion pyramid scheme, a method of counterfeiting the idea of money, along side their counterfeit version of defensive government. Convicting those bank robbers is not possible when the victims still believe the lie that the bank robbers themselves are our one and only source of defense against harm done by criminals who are always ready to volunteer to be criminals if you let them.

Back to the question:
"A convicted bank robber, sitting in a cell in prison, has the right to a gun?"

Next is a free lesson from someone who is an authority on this type of TOPIC. The author of the following words is Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn. Pay attention, this is a free lesson to other people, but the author learned this lesson the hard way.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

All you have done is explain why there is no such thing as a natural right. Your examples simply point out that all rights exist either as a matter of force or mutual agreement. They exist only to the extent society says they exist. They do not exist as some sort of natural phenomenon and are certainly not inalienable.

 

[hortysir]

The rights enumerated in the Bill of rights can be forfeited

Then they are not inalienable.

I'm agreeing with you

 

[hortysir]

Our inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Show me the law which states this.

Can't. Because that's from the DoI not the Constitution

 

[PratchettFan]

The rights enumerated in the Bill of rights can be forfeited

Then they are not inalienable.

I'm agreeing with you

Then you are clearly right.

 

[Josf]

"All you have done is explain why there is no such thing as a natural right. Your examples simply point out that all rights exist either as a matter of force or mutual agreement. They exist only to the extent society says they exist. They do not exist as some sort of natural phenomenon and are certainly not inalienable."

Exposing deception contained within the words employed by deceivers is a lost art form, perhaps. If I have helped in any way, reach that goal, then please consider the natural law, or natural principle, of agreement as that principle works in time and place.

Example:
Naturally the matter known as hydrogen can be said to agree with the matter known as oxygen in such a way as to create water. On the other hand the natural order of things also include the combination of water and human genetic memory applied to specific specialized cells that end up in an agreement known as many individual examples of human beings who either agree to defend each other honestly, effectively, and therefore these agreeable people are bound to respond when able to threats, such as deceivers, and these people are bound to hold themselves and each other to an accurate accounting of their responsibilities. Those who do not agree are those who respond because they are able to deceive, threaten with criminal violence, and then violently injure, with malice aforethought, innocent victims. They too agree, as they too may form into groups of criminals, and that too abides by natural laws of agreement; or if you prefer to us the word principles, as in natural principles of agreement, then that is a way to agree on the use of specific words that have only one meaning, an agreed upon meaning, rather than choosing words that have many meanings, and often meanings that are opposite.

If I agree to use words where meanings are meant to mean one thing to the targeted victim of deception, while the meaning I intend to define is another meaning, then I agree to use deception as a method by which I act out my ability to respond, or my responsibilities, and I agree not to be held to an accurate accounting even before I begin to lie.

1. Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
2. Extraordinary Rendition
3. Quantitative Easing
4. Inflation
5. Excise Tax
6. Austerity Measures
7. Federalist Party
8. Central Banker
9. Government
10. State

If you agree to help make sense of life as it is in fact, by agreeing to find the problems with words, then I can agree with that idea by responding in kind.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I got rid of my guns when I quit working security. Having one makes you view every little thing with thoughts of threat or no-threat. That's not a good way to live.

 

[2aguy]

I got rid of my guns when I quit working security. Having one makes you view every little thing with thoughts of threat or no-threat. That's not a good way to live.

Actually....that makes you in particular see the world that way....not everyone......