Britain's new political prisoner:

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by Karst

No, it does not. Right to life means you have the right not to be killed. It does not include the right to defend yourself, and certainly not the inalienable right to own guns.

So if attack you with the intent to kill you you have no right to fight back? I'm sure criminals are quite happy people like you exsist.

[Joe Bonham]

No, it does not. Right to life means you have the right not to be killed. It does not include the right to defend yourself, and certainly not the inalienable right to own guns.

Rights are relative. They depend on your ability to defend them.

So if you have the "right" to life, but not the "right" to defend it - the right to life doesn't mean squat.

[Emperor Benedictine]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice

Now you're beginning to understand.

Same reason they banned mace. Even though there's no plausible explanation for it, they still did it

The explanation is that people can use it to cause each other pain regardless of whether or not they are defending themselves, and cannot really be relied upon to use it responsibly. Questionable grounds for banning it, but not really implausible.

Anyway, nobody I've heard of carries mace around in Britain so I don't know what the government would have thought they could accomplish by making it grounds for arrest.

God only knows. There's literally millions of laws on what you can and cannot do/have.

But you can't think of one thing that I'm likely to have in my home that would land me in trouble. Any other examples, apart from illegal weaponry, of things we're not allowed to own?

Hell, the crime doesn't even need to be real. A few years ago American Federal police stormed an old couple's home, "found" some drugs, and "accidentally" shot the husband - and the guy was like 70 years old. (It was a newspaper article. I'm trying to find an internet source for you now...)

Unless I'm suspected of terrorism I'm not too worried.

You've presented one explanation for gun regulations but it seems to me a lot less plausible than the one we already have. You can make anything look like evidence of "totalitarianism" if you try hard enough.

[Joe Bonham]

Originally Posted by TheDarkInvader

The explanation is that people can use it to cause each other pain regardless of whether or not they are defending themselves, and cannot really be relied upon to use it responsibly. Questionable grounds for banning it, but not really implausible.

Anyway, nobody I've heard of carries mace around in Britain so I don't know what the government would have thought they could accomplish by making it grounds for arrest.

American girls visiting often do. And anyway, totalitarianism is a trend, not a specificity.

But you can't think of one thing that I'm likely to have in my home that would land me in trouble. Any other examples, apart from illegal weaponry, of things we're not allowed to own?Unless I'm suspected of terrorism I'm not too worried.

Last year a British family was forced to take down an "unlicensed playhouse" in their front lawn. In the USA a highschool student was captured by a squadron of police helicopters for - wearing a gorrilla mask on the school roof as a prank.

You've presented one explanation for gun regulations but it seems to me a lot less plausible than the one we already have. You can make anything look like evidence of "totalitarianism" if you try hard enough.

Wow! Using increasing size of laws and government as evidence of totalitarianism. I can see why you would find that confusing.

[Emperor Benedictine]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice

American girls visiting often do. And anyway, totalitarianism is a trend, not a specificity.

They didn't make the law so they could arrest tourists. I think you'll find the reasons for banning mace were pretty mundane.

Last year a British family was forced to take down an "unlicensed playhouse" in their front lawn. In the USA a highschool student was captured by a squadron of police helicopters for - wearing a gorrilla mask on the school roof as a prank.

Any reason I should think of these things as more than just products of inneficient bureaucracy? I'm guessing this playhouse thing was an issue of planning permission, which is fairly common.

Wow! Using increasing size of laws and government as evidence of totalitarianism. I can see why you would find that confusing.

It's not confusing, just extremely unsatisfactory. It suggests a rather loose definition of a totalitarian state.

[WarHawk109]

Originally Posted by TheDarkInvader

Dogma. Yours are not the definitions of liberty, democracy and justice that the rest of us live by.

This is not a response, you have not addressed my point at all. This is also the relativist fallacy.

There is a well defined moral code that is behind my arguments which has a very long history. But that isn't the point.

As long as he was not hurting anyone, the gov't has no moral right to tell him how he must live his life.

Also, there is no gun "ban", merely heavy regulations which were not followed.

So you can legally own, say, a handgun? An assault rifle? An smg?

Well according to your reasoning, if we want to defend ourselves all we need are "better locks, an alarm, or even firearms", so which is it? Either firearms are necessary for self-defence, or they aren't.

All are necessary. If the gov't banned alarms I'd be saying the same thing.

Originally Posted by Karst

Your idea of injust.
Your idea of preserving liberty.
It's only your opinion, which has no legal or moral justification.

Another example of the relativist fallacy. "It's your opinion" is not an argument. We could go around in circles accusing each other of having opinions but it won't get us anywhere.

Yes, that is indeed what you think. However, not everyone agrees with that.

How about addressing my point? Your point was that it is okay to take away guns because the gov't already takes away drugs, but I don't think that's right either.

But no matter how a political system works, there is no way everyone's opinions can be represented adequatly. Which is why rule of the majority more accurately corresponds with reality.

Or you could have a political system that doesn't allow for any one opinion to rule, a political system where the people govern themselves (their selves, keyword being selves).

No, it does not. Right to life means you have the right not to be killed. It does not include the right to defend yourself, and certainly not the inalienable right to own guns.

All rights are an extention of the right to life. All other rights, I would argue, are just another way of expressing the right to life. What point is there in having the right to life when you cannot defend it?

Matter of opinion, once again.

Again, the relativist fallacy.

Which laws are injust is a matter of opinion, thus being the same as laws you don't like.

Another relativist fallcy.

Using your logic the laws that Nazi Germany passed ae justifiable since everyone has a different opinion. :lol:

However, i do think that punishing people for posession of some drugs is quite stupid.

For what reason?

[Emperor Benedictine]

Originally Posted by WarHawk109

This is not a response, you have not addressed my point at all. This is also the relativist fallacy.

I have responded to your claim that gun restrictions violate the right to life, and earlier stated my belief that no rights at all are being violated by the government here. What debatable points have I not responded to? The reason we follow different definitions isn't because I'm a "relativist", but because you don't like the established ones.

So you can legally own, say, a handgun? An assault rifle? An smg?

UK gun laws are complicated and it would take me hours to find out all the different variants that are and aren't allowed, in what circumstances, and under what conditions. The most powerful firearms are generally banned and not just anybody can get one, but generally people can still legally own guns if they really want to.

All are necessary. If the gov't banned alarms I'd be saying the same thing.

For a thing to be "necessary" you have to literally need it to protect your life. Good luck proving that one because in the UK, you'd have a hard job.

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by TheDarkInvader

I have responded to your claim that gun restrictions violate the right to life, and earlier stated my belief that no rights at all are being violated by the government here. What debatable points have I not responded to?

It doesn't necessarily violate the right to life, but it certainly violates your rights. Rule of thumb for me, and as far as I can tell, Warhawk, is that all government should be created under this single premise.

You can do whatever you want, whenever you want, so long as you don't hurt someone else or violate their rights.

Any law that doesn't follow that guideline is, to me, evil. Some laws though that I consider necessary evils include restrictions on firearms(yes, restrictions are necssary, but by restrictions I mean make sure people acually know how to handle firearms and safley use them, not restrictions on firearms.), banning of extream high explosives(nukes, large or powerful bombs, small amounts of explosives are fine) and some drug laws to prevent kids from getting the drugs.

[WarHawk109]

Originally Posted by TheDarkInvader

I have responded to your claim that gun restrictions violate the right to life, and earlier stated my belief that no rights at all are being violated by the government here. What debatable points have I not responded to? The reason we follow different definitions isn't because I'm a "relativist", but because you don't like the established ones.

You response to my argument was to call it "dogma" and resort to the relativist fallacy; that since my veiws are not shared by everyone they are wrong.

Like I said, I have a very well defined and established moral code.

UK gun laws are complicated and it would take me hours to find out all the different variants that are and aren't allowed, in what circumstances, and under what conditions. The most powerful firearms are generally banned and not just anybody can get one, but generally people can still legally own guns if they really want to.

Ah, so the UK has a partial ban? Big deal. Like it's a big difference from what I am talking about.

For a thing to be "necessary" you have to literally need it to protect your life. Good luck proving that one because in the UK, you'd have a hard job

The UK, and Europe in general is a write-off IMO, I have no aims to convince UKer's or Europeans one way or the other, but I do think it serves as an example of what not to do in the USA or Canada.

[Emperor Benedictine]

Originally Posted by WarHawk109

You response to my argument was to call it "dogma" and resort to the relativist fallacy; that since my veiws are not shared by everyone they are wrong.

Did I say they were wrong because of that? I think not. But it is dogma. Proclaimed as true without proof, or anything close to it, as though there's some inherent reason we should all go along with it.

Ah, so the UK has a partial ban? Big deal. Like it's a big difference from what I am talking about.

Not if you're not sure what that even is, no.

I have no aims to convince UKer's or Europeans one way or the other

That's probably wise. I'll remember that next time you complain about not getting a satisfactory counter-argument because it works well as a justification.

Originally Posted by Afterburner

It doesn't necessarily violate the right to life, but it certainly violates your rights. Rule of thumb for me, and as far as I can tell, Warhawk, is that all government should be created under this single premise.

You can do whatever you want, whenever you want, so long as you don't hurt someone else or violate their rights.

Fair enough, but that's not a right...it's a philosophical principle, and in my personal opinion, a naive one. You've given examples of "necessary evils" - if they are necessary it means that this principle doesn't work out in real life. You consider the risk that children get their hands on drugs to be too high. The British government considers the risk that school shootings and things like the Hungerford Massacre occur to be too high.