doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Zumbo's comments

Did Locke and others have some transcending (a Romantic word again) or divine philosophical insight that revealed what is a natural right? Did they all have the same insight? Does everyone agree on the three noted above in Locke and the Declaration?

What was the genesis of the Bill of Rights if not a political exercise of human will? It's protections depend on political power, any and all can be legislated away by amendment.

The simple questions "What is a natural right?" and "Who defines what is a natural right?" can only be answered by speculative opinion. Rights exist in the context of human history and culture. Natural rights exist in the imagination of humans.

Philosophy is not any different than theroretical physics, except that physics can be proven with math. Einstein had just as wild imagination as John Locke and Rene Descartes. Unfortualey philosophy can't be proven with numbers. The Bill of Rights stems from a lot on English common law and also the graddaddy of all Bill of Rights, the Magna Charta. I donn't think that the Enlightenment Philosophers invented a lot of new things, but rather put the pieces together from existing ideas. Just as Issac Newton K.B.E. didn't invent light, but discovered the principles of light.

Natural Rights are an extension of Free Agency. You can't be free unless you have the ability to act. However, John Locke said that Natural Rights included the right to life, liberty and property. The Founders didn't believe in a right to property, (i.e. taxes) so they substitued "Happiness". As for life and liberty, well... tell a wilderbeast being eaten by a lion that he has the right to life.

The only rights that I can think of that the government defends are the right to pay taxes and the right to remain silent.

As fOr a neandertal with a ShOtgun. I don't trust extict species with firearms. AlsO the human DNA genome project has proved that everyone descended from a single alpha male and female. Up to you to fill in the blAnks.

Neanderthal man did, where do you think all those pumps and autoloaders came from! By their ungainly appearance a caveman had to have invented them!!!!

Once again, if this is the case, then why could Dodd not have “evolved” the bill further by including the provisions from NWL’38 in the bill? What documentation do you have to prove the bill was in its final form prior to this? Since Dodd had knowledge of this law, since he had it translated, why could he not have put very similar provisions in it prior to the letter from the Library of Congress? Tell me straight up that Dodd could not have revised the bill if what you are claiming is true?

If you have no documentation to back up your speculation than admit that this is nothing but your opinion, end of story.




Of course I instered it, that's what the brackest are used for. I made the insertion and clearly marked it with “[]” to make sure there was no misunderstanding of what was being referred to and for no other reason.
Here’s my original question : Rep. John Dingle (D-Michigan) made some objections in the House debate over this law that it resmebled too closely the NLW'38 (Nazi Law on Weapons 1938). He was attacked by Senator Tydings (D-MD) who I believe was from Maryland, and Dingle backed down. Why did this happen if they were not alike?

You can find it on page 23.

Here’s your evasion on the same page two posts down:
Probably because Rep. John Dingell, in a hearing before Dodd's committee, compared the proposed legislation to the 1938 Nazi law! If you were accused of copying something, wouldn't you want to check it out? Do you really imagine that on such a controversial topic, Dodd could read a document in mid-July, draw up a "near verbatim copy" and make it a law by October?

If you admitted you had no answer the first time we could have avoided this. Don't pretend to get all huffy and puffy, a sixth grader might be impressed with it but that's about all. By the way, Dingle is still in office. Contact him, and find out for yourself, he’s an interesting person. He and Ted Kennedy are the only remaining members from this episode.




I said it was “near” ( you know, close, similar, etc.), I never said it was EXACT. If GAC’68 only had this one similar provision, then any claim that the two laws were related would be a stretch. However, combined with the other similarities together in one law combined with the letter in the possession of the author who wrote the law is what the issue is about. If the other nations you mentioned passed the same laws under the same circumstances, then yes. Otherwise your comparison of other European nations is just a smoke screen and has nothing to do with it.(GOOD GRIEF, AND YOU KEEP WHINING ABOUT RIDICULOUS ASSERTIONS AND THIS IS ALL YOU CAN CLAIM?! You also need to reads things a bit closer too.)




I will gladly address the questions regarding other areas of the two laws when we get to them, so hang onto them for now. I need to go one issue at a time because I have little time to post. You made a demand that I post where the laws were similar, and I posted one example, and I will post more AFTER you fulfill the similar demand I now make on you. Please post a section from each law where they are distinctly different to prove your claim that they are not alike. Include the Section Number, Section Title, and subsection number if applicable, from each law so I can go directly to it and read it. Tell me briefly what the section differences are. I don’t want or need a dissertation from you.

I await your posting with the information.

Greg, we are all utilitarians no matter which philosophical school we choose to swim with. Mother Love defies that categorization and is the exception in human commerce and organization. If you know the ballad of "The Wreck of Old 99" you may also know that it is a story about the price which someone must always pay for the greater good--in this case the loss of life on the fast mail trains of the 19th century. The mail must go through "on time"; the loss of life is an acceptable price unless it's the love of YOUR life who dies. The commuter must also go through as must the beer trucks and so the personal and social utility of getting to work or having a brewsky numbs our dread of highway carnage. We send our boys to war. They die defending life, liberty and the pursuit of abstractions. We accept their sacrifice as terrible but necessary. Utilitarian was the occupational definition of the social animal before it became the intellectual property of your least favorite philosophe.

jack

JM: Apparently you don't even know what "verbatim" means. I won't waste any more time on you. Rave on.

Sorry but I have no ancestors n Africa.

BLAAHAAHHAA! I KNEW IT(!), you can't answer my question and post any part of the Nazi Weapons Law from 1938 because you DON'T KNOW!!!!!! You've misrepresented yourself at the least or have been untruthful at worst. I gave you the benefit of the doubt early on, but it became VERY obvious when you made the post in response to the similarities to the licensing sections. I've also asked you more than once to post information from NLW'38 and you never did. If you knew it, you would have posted it in a hearbeat to prove your point!!!

YOU'VE BEEN CAUGHT WITH YOUR PANTS DOWN AND YOUR BARE BUTT EXPOSED!

Don't even pretend it, Jack. It has nothing to do with the definition of verbatim which means "exact" because I said "NEAR VERBATIM" which you've quoted from me in your own comments. This is just another one of your smoke screens in an attempt to hide the obvious: YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU HAVE CLAIMED OTHERWISE!!!!

You have no trouble jumping on other people and making demands that they explain this and prove that. It's seems it's a different story when the tables are turned, you blame the other person, and bail out. You're entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. What goes around comes around.

Normally, I would not do this with anyone who admitted upfront the limits of their knowledge of a particular issue, but you deserve it for wasting my time and putting on this scam. I will allow myself this one transgression and my aplogies to the other memebers of this board.

Goodbye.