[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Is the right to bear firearms a natural right that existed before it was an amendment…and before they were invented? [/quote]
I think the tight to defend yourself is a natural right and the second amendment is an obvious progression of this natural right.[/quote]
I thought it was about maintaining a militia.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[/quote]
You are taking the “call it a right” stance on getting people to go along with ideas.
Calling a Duck a Rabbit does not a rabbit make.
Yes, the government could do with healthcare what it did with education, but that doesn’t make either of them rights. Obama is selling an idea, Pitt is long gone on the topic, and you think unlike any libertarian I’ve ever met.
[quote]H factor wrote:
We can change our principles and our powers at any time. The idea that we can’t doesn’t fly. [/quote]
I never said we couldn’t. Not sure where you got that idea.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Is the right to bear firearms a natural right that existed before it was an amendment…and before they were invented? [/quote]
I think the tight to defend yourself is a natural right and the second amendment is an obvious progression of this natural right.[/quote]
I thought it was about maintaining a militia. [/quote]
Same difference, nice try though.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Is the right to bear firearms a natural right that existed before it was an amendment…and before they were invented? [/quote]
I think the tight to defend yourself is a natural right and the second amendment is an obvious progression of this natural right.[/quote]
I thought it was about maintaining a militia. [/quote]
It’s to ensure freedom via a militia so basically self defense
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Again Pitt and now H Factor, you’re just wrong in this case.
Is Heathcare a Right? - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
Read what former New Jersey judge Andrew Napolitano has to say about t rights vs. Goods.[/quote]
I gree with what I have read , I do not see where Napolitano is saying I am wrong .
[/quote]
…and that’s why you give me a headache. He, which I completely agree, is saying Healthcare is a good not a right. Same with labor. Is that now what you have been saying for days now?[/quote]
It is a right to pursue that which is good
[/quote]
Okay…that doesn’t make labor or healthcare a right
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Is the right to bear firearms a natural right that existed before it was an amendment…and before they were invented? [/quote]
I think the tight to defend yourself is a natural right and the second amendment is an obvious progression of this natural right.[/quote]
I thought it was about maintaining a militia. [/quote]
It’s to ensure freedom via a militia so basically self defense[/quote]
I thought the militia was to protect against foreign invaders, not home invaders.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[/quote]
You are taking the “call it a right” stance on getting people to go along with ideas.
Calling a Duck a Rabbit does not a rabbit make.
Yes, the government could do with healthcare what it did with education, but that doesn’t make either of them rights. Obama is selling an idea, Pitt is long gone on the topic, and you think unlike any libertarian I’ve ever met.[/quote]
Lol, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying we SHOULD call it a right, merely that we can. Again, go back to my original post. It is clearly laying out the reasons why we should not do this. And the key to winning the argument is to point out all the problems with making health care a right. All I’ve been saying is that of course we CAN do this. We can do whatever we want. We can make whatever we want be protected by the government. We did when we founded the country, we’ve continuously did this since we founded the country. The idea that we can’t is simply untrue.
In my opinion it’s much more beneficial to point out the myriad of problems with making healthcare a right than to sit around and act as if we can’t do this. We, the government of the people by the people, can do whatever we want. The government can do whatever we want it to do. Or at least it is designed to do that. It’s supposed to be a function of the people’s will.
I want it as small as possible because that’s what best ensures what I think is it’s original and ultimate role. But I fully acknowledge the fact that it is originally designed to change into whatever form it’s people decide to change it to. The Declaration clearly states so. The founders state so by creating a document that CAN be changed. No matter how much I think it shouldn’t, it still CAN. We have already changed it many times.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Again Pitt and now H Factor, you’re just wrong in this case.
Is Heathcare a Right? - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
Read what former New Jersey judge Andrew Napolitano has to say about t rights vs. Goods.[/quote]
I gree with what I have read , I do not see where Napolitano is saying I am wrong .
[/quote]
…and that’s why you give me a headache. He, which I completely agree, is saying Healthcare is a good not a right. Same with labor. Is that now what you have been saying for days now?[/quote]
It is a right to pursue that which is good
[/quote]
Okay…that doesn’t make labor or healthcare a right
[/quote]
it makes pursuing them a right
I understand why your head hurts 
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
it makes pursuing them a right
[/quote]
No it doesn’t. Locke, Mason and Jefferson would be disgusted at your perversion of what they observed.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Is the right to bear firearms a natural right that existed before it was an amendment…and before they were invented? [/quote]
I think the tight to defend yourself is a natural right and the second amendment is an obvious progression of this natural right.[/quote]
I thought it was about maintaining a militia. [/quote]
It’s to ensure freedom via a militia so basically self defense[/quote]
I thought the militia was to protect against foreign invaders, not home invaders. [/quote]
Pretty sure the phrase “both foreign and domestic” is written down somewhere.
And the 2nd isn’t limited to a militia.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
it makes pursuing them a right
[/quote]
No it doesn’t. Locke, Mason and Jefferson would be disgusted at your perversion of what they observed.[/quote]
Maybe so but Thomas Paine would be PROUD
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
it makes pursuing them a right
[/quote]
No it doesn’t. Locke, Mason and Jefferson would be disgusted at your perversion of what they observed.[/quote]
Maybe so but Thomas Paine would be PROUD
[/quote]
A man everyone grew to detest and abandon because of his crazyness?
Hang your hat on that one man.
I quoted the wrong post from you anyway.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Is the right to bear firearms a natural right that existed before it was an amendment…and before they were invented? [/quote]
I think the tight to defend yourself is a natural right and the second amendment is an obvious progression of this natural right.[/quote]
I thought it was about maintaining a militia. [/quote]
It’s to ensure freedom via a militia so basically self defense[/quote]
I thought the militia was to protect against foreign invaders, not home invaders. [/quote]
Pretty sure the phrase “both foreign and domestic” is written down somewhere.
[/quote]
In the amendment or in the oath of enlistment?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
it makes pursuing them a right
[/quote]
No it doesn’t. Locke, Mason and Jefferson would be disgusted at your perversion of what they observed.[/quote]
Maybe so but Thomas Paine would be PROUD
[/quote]
A man everyone grew to detest and abandon because of his crazyness?
Hang your hat on that one man.
I quoted the wrong post from you anyway.[/quote]
You don’t get it , I know but our founding fathers were not a narrow group of people . I, over this last year have studied or read biographies on Paine , Washington and Franklin read 1776 by McCullough . I can safely say our Fore Fathers were a broad spectrum of personality and political views .
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I can safely say our Fore Fathers were a broad spectrum of personality and political views .
[/quote]
Yet you still think healthcare is a right…
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Is the right to bear firearms a natural right that existed before it was an amendment…and before they were invented? [/quote]
I think the tight to defend yourself is a natural right and the second amendment is an obvious progression of this natural right.[/quote]
I thought it was about maintaining a militia. [/quote]
It’s to ensure freedom via a militia so basically self defense[/quote]
I thought the militia was to protect against foreign invaders, not home invaders. [/quote]
Pretty sure the phrase “both foreign and domestic” is written down somewhere.
[/quote]
In the amendment or in the oath of enlistment? [/quote]
Does it really matter?
Your angle here is what? Gun control agruments?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I can safely say our Fore Fathers were a broad spectrum of personality and political views .
[/quote]
Yet you still think healthcare is a right…
[/quote]
Yes
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Is the right to bear firearms a natural right that existed before it was an amendment…and before they were invented? [/quote]
I think the tight to defend yourself is a natural right and the second amendment is an obvious progression of this natural right.[/quote]
I thought it was about maintaining a militia. [/quote]
It’s to ensure freedom via a militia so basically self defense[/quote]
I thought the militia was to protect against foreign invaders, not home invaders. [/quote]
Pretty sure the phrase “both foreign and domestic” is written down somewhere.
[/quote]
In the amendment or in the oath of enlistment? [/quote]
Does it really matter?
Your angle here is what? Gun control agruments?[/quote]
No. The idea that there are natural rights, gun ownership being one of them. I prefer a logical reason for rights rather than looking for some answer in nature. I don’t think anyone defends themselves when attacked because they have the right or believe they have the right but because of a natural instinct (not right) for self preservation.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I can safely say our Fore Fathers were a broad spectrum of personality and political views .
[/quote]
Yet you still think healthcare is a right…
[/quote]
Yes
[/quote]
I’m sure Jefferson just left “obamacare” off the end of his list. And Locke had Fluck-control in mind too…
smh