waitforufo

If climate change is a big hoax and we spend $100T on it, that will be $100T spent on nothing. During the '60s to major events were happening in the United States. The space program and the civil rights movement. Many in the civil rights movement pointed to the space program and said it was $25B (~$170B in 2015 dollars) to do nothing but put garbage on the moon. They insisted that money would have been better spent on poverty programs. It was quite common in the '70s to hear people say "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we do "X". Well frequently we couldn't do "X" because we spent all our cash putting a man on the moon. You can do a lot of good with $100T. Think of funding for education, further space exploration, advances in medicine, scientific research, motorcycles, and fast women that $100T can provide. If climate change is a big hoax per your cartoon, we will miss out on all the other things that $100T could provide. The risks of improperly understanding our climate are great. If it turns out that the CO2 we are adding to the environment has only a minor impact on climate, some of the impact being positive by the way, spending $100T to "fix" it will be be a disaster.

The Declaration of Independence also speaks of the "Laws of Nature". Rights are an issue of law. I agree with your comment regarding the edit by Ben Franklin and the phrase "endowed by ones creator" but with one exception. Invoking the creator or god in law is not necessarily a religious reference or endorsement. For example a person is not generally considered liable if a second party is harmed on there property by some natural act like a lightning strike or an earthquake. Such natural events are commonly referred to as "acts of god" in law. So invoking the creator in "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights", Ben was simply reinforcing the concept of inalienable rights. It does not need to be taken as a religious statement or an endorsement of religion or belief in god or a creator. So when someone points to the Declaration of Independence and says our country was founded on religious principals, that statement is ignorant. I wish I had a reference for that legal understanding of "acts of god". I took a business law class as an undergraduate, where liability was a central focus. That "acts of god" bit was in the course book and taught in the class. I think I sold that book back to the campus bookstore and bought beer an pizza. found it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God

Spending $100T needlessly will only make the world worse off not better. That money could be spent on improving lives, and cleaning the environment and real ways. David Roberts said IAMs are used by governments to set policy and compare costs. Then his article says. So if IAMs are worthless why are they used to set policy and compare costs? I just thought the article was funny coming from a person effectively calling skeptics Nazis. The "Climate Hawk" needs to get back on script before he becomes a pariah in his own alarmist community. http://grist.org/article/2010-10-20-introducing-climate-hawks/

Overtone, You and I differ greatly on the need for gun control in the United States. Your logic however is impeccable on the second amendment. Thankfully for my side of the gun control argument, our opponents are as hopelessly lost as those that challenge your logic. It makes the fight a lot easier for my side. I loved your tar baby analogy, by the way. I often wonder if the arguments against your position are just NRA shills muddying the waters. Any judge accepting such nonsense arguments would be a laughing stock in the legal profession.

Perhaps you should also read Griswold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut The ninth amendment is not an enigma to those who appreciate the philosophy of natural rights as our founders did. Also, you must have missed this part. Only limited powers. Since this topic was spawned from a gun control topic. Where does the constitution, minus the bill of rights, empower the government to regulate my right to keep and bear arms? Aren't you trying to exercise an implied power to regulate my liberties?

No it was a direct reference to the rights previously mentioned in the proceeding eight amendments. In case you missed it, the 2nd amendment was one of those. Wait a minute. Where does this "right to life" come from? What makes it fundamental? How are "fundamental" rights different from "natural" rights? Given a little more time I'm sure you could find lots of rights not mentioned in the constitution that you believe are fundamental. For example do women have the right to there own bodies, particularly with respect to abortion? Do you have the right to a confidential relationship with your doctor, lawyer, or religious counselor? Give it a try. I'm sure you will think of many. Think of it another way. How do you want the government to think about your rights? Do you really want the government to think all of your rights are decided by them? Even if that them is the majority of the people? Or do you like the idea that your rights are inalienable? Swansont, Don't feel neglected. I'll try to get back to you later.

This topic was split from a gun control in the United States topic. So it is associated to rights as understood in US law. In the United States our laws are founded on a concept of inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are a natural part of your being and cannot be justly separated from you. Why are they inalienable? How does one explain inalienable rights? In the United States does it matter? No, it does not matter in the United States. I posted the following. dimreeper replied I explained with the following. My question to dimreeper is consistent with United States laws which are founded on a concept natural inalienable rights. I would still like dimreeper, who insists that rights come from government to provide an answer to " The ninth amendment says I have rights that are not found in the Constitution that cannot be denied or disparaged. With your way of thinking, how is this possible?" Also, if we all have such undefined rights, where did they come from. Maybe his answer will show me the error of my thinking.

Of course not. This bouncing between topics is simply a bit tedious. Also this forum is simply a small entertainment aspect of my life. By ones I'm assuming you mean other living things. I would say yes. Let's take lions, tigers and bears as an example. They are our natural predators. Do they have the right to eat us? I would say yes they do. But we also have the right to defend our own lives. So based on our right we can take their lives also. We are also predators by nature. We have through our evolution developed the ability to use animal parts for tools and clothing. Doing so is our natural relationship with animals. Does this give us the right to torture animals. I would say no. I'm sure all living things have the right to a torture free existence. Not being an animal, I'm not aware of there societal rights, but they do seem to have them. Even insects appear to have societal rights. Such questions would be better asked of a biologist. We in the US certainly treat living things as if they have rights. More on a species level then on the individual level. We set aside millions of acres of land. We work to insure clean water. Of course you do. The entire human rights movement is based on this fact. Human beings cannot flourish without their rights any more then they could without food, water, clothing, and shelter. They are essential to our being. All justice and compassion is based on this fact. The ninth amendment You argue that governments grant rights. The ninth amendment says I have rights that are not found in the Constitution that cannot be denied or disparaged. With your way of thinking, how is this possible?

This topic was started in January of 2014. I joined this topic on post 169 on July 15, 2015. So you can only implicate me for 4 months. I had been reading the topic from the start and It was hopelessly lost at the point that I joined. Now we have a gun control topic that has spun off the history of the constitution and the origin of our rights as if those topics are not important to this conversation, even though SCOTUS rulings are frequently based on these topics. We are not to talk about supreme court rulings even when they would prohibit the gun control proposals at hand, because laws change and rulings can be overturned. I guess the plan is to find politicians willing to promote bills contrary to our traditions in law, and obviously in violation of the constitution and supreme court rulings and then hope that the supreme court ignores stare decisis and overturns at least Heller if not the 2nd amendment. First, you won't find the politicians, and second they won't make it to the Supreme Court because the lower courts will appreciate stare decisis. Even with all of that I have seen no proposal that would prevent the mentally ill from mass shootings. Nor have I seen a single proposal that would reduce firearms accidents accept safety training from K through 12. Agreed. Same goes for Heller. Agreed. Americans love guns. We keep buying more. Especially when politicians are pushing gun control. Safe storage violates Heller. Oops, I'm not supposed to bring that up. Previously stable individuals become unstable every day. How do you prohibit someone from exercising their rights in a nation that believes that people are innocent until proven guilty? Individuals don't have to prove that they have good mental health to purchase firearms, the government has to prove that they have mental health problems to prohibit them from exercising there rights. Pair that with prohibitions on self incrimination and requiring proof of mental health becomes impossible. We could however encourage if not require medical professionals to report mental instability. Wait, there is doctor-client privilege. That was a crucial consideration in Griswold, and Roe. Probably cant require doctors to report their patients either. While I do believe it is possible I don't think so with this group. Here's the problem. Someone will make a proposal. Then someone will challenge the constitutionality of the proposal. Then instead of seriously considering the constitutional objection or moving on to other proposals we will have another month long argument about the definition of the word militia, and the meaning of the phrase "well regulated", argue about the National Guard and piss and moan about SCOTUS rulings. Their is a reason why this has been going on for nearly two years.

An interesting article from David Roberts. You might remember this quote form David Roberts. http://www.vox.com/2015/10/23/9604120/climate-models-uncertainty Here is my favorite parts . So why are we spending tax money on climate change or climate change mitigation?

This was not the understanding of the founders of the United States. If it were, how could they write the ninth amendment?

So are you going to provide me with all the the SCOTUS cases that disagree with me then? It sounds like you have a whole list. I think they would be important to this discussion. You made a claim that you had SCOTUS cases that disagreed with me. Please follow the rules of the forum and back up you claim. Don't worry about the dates. Here is your post again. Again from your post. I would like to see "every SCOTUS case" that "disagrees" with me. Can't you find even one?

I have stated it many many times. Natural rights come from nature. Just like human beings come from nature. They are an essential part of our being. This is a position widely held by philosophers during the enlightenment. The same philosophers that inspired the American revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States. I didn't make the concept up. Have you studied no history or philosophy? So I have given an explanation whether you accept that explanation or not. If you think I am violating the rules of this forum, please report this post to the moderator. Firearms allow me to defend myself. Self defense is a natural right. Believing that my rights come from government is evil. Swansont, I was directing these questions at you. Perhaps you missed it.

iNow I was not challenging you. I was challenging ydoaPs. He made a claim. I challenged him not you. He should back up is claim or be an adult and admit he was wrong. He should also list the SCOTUS rulings he is referring to. If he cannot, he should admit he is wrong. After admitting he was wrong he should at least list every SCOTUS ruling that disagrees with me. ydoaPs's "every SCOTUS case prior to the formation of the NRA" implies there were several. I want to know each and every one of them. Do I really need to ask the moderator in intervene? Don't you agree that is my next course of action should ydoaPs not reply to my request? . By the way, I and many like me don't have much respect for Warren Berger. He was instrumental in interning Japanese Americans during WWII. http://www.fofweb.com/History/HistRefMain.asp?iPin=EJA566&SID=2&DatabaseName=American+History+Online&InputText=%22Earl+Warren+Japanese+American+internment+and%22&SearchStyle=&dTitle=Earl+Warren%2C+Japanese+American+internment+and&TabRecordType=All+Records&BioCountPass=0&SubCountPass=1&DocCountPass=0&ImgCountPass=0&MapCountPass=0&FedCountPass=&MedCountPass=0&NewsCountPass=0&RecPosition=1&AmericanData=Set&WomenData=&AFHCData=&IndianData=&WorldData=&AncientData=&GovernmentData= He was also a homophobic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_E._Burger

The United states recognizes two militias. The organized militia and the unorganized militia. The National Guard is the organized militia. Citizens with guns make up the unorganized militia. Look up the Dick Act of 1902. The national guard was formed officially in 1903. I'm fully aware of Heller. You said "It's funny how every SCOTUS case prior to the formation of the NRA disagrees with you." Please list those cases prior to the formation of the NRA that disagree with me. In the United states, the people control the government. If the government stopped responding to that control, would it not be a treasonous government due to it's violation of the Constitution?

You might want to check out the Dick Act of 1902. There is an organized militia and an unorganized militia. Both are recognized in the US.

I'm not sure why the gun control advocates on this topic are not arguing that the intent of the founders was to provide arms to bears. They can't figure out what a militia is. They can't figure out what well regulated means. Making an argument to arm bears would be completely consistent.

I'm curious to what you are agreeing. Does the constitution recognize my natural rights or does the constitution create my rights? Also, what was the intention of the founders? How does the ninth amendment play into your opinion?

Could you please site the case? Is it impossible for the government to be treasonous if they are acting against the people or their rights?

The second amendment doesn't confuse anyone. Some people just don't like the fact that it guarantees that all people in the US the right to choose to own firearms. You are mistaking confusion with willful obfuscation. Changing the constitution is difficult and they don't want to put forth the effort so the obfuscate.

If gun control is so popular as some in this topic believe, why is the NRA so popular in America. http://www.gallup.com/poll/186284/despite-criticism-nra-enjoys-majority-support.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles How many political candidates are that popular?

Here are a couple of links regarding implementation of natural rights outside the US. I read a good book on the subject a few years back. I'll see if I can find it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/chap3a.html The Wiki link gives the dates for the age of enlightenment between 1620 and 1789. The start was more scientific and the end was more philosophical. The primary goal of enlightenment philosophy was to restructure society based on reason rather than faith. This was the philosophical springboard for both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Both documents, taking from enlightenment philosophy, considered human rights to be natural and inalienable. Enlightenment philosophy held that the primary purpose of government was to protect and promote the natural inalienable rights of individuals. Hence the bill of rights. As western civilization fails, so do the ideals of the Enlightenment. Just look at the ignorance of dimreepr. Sad really. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The book is called "The Great Upheaval" by Jay Winik. ISBN 978-0-06-0083314-4

You say fortunately. Why? You say recently. How recent?

No they are not. No modern intelligent person believes that. Wake up. Since the enlightenment people have understood that human beings have natural rights. It's too bad your education system didn't impart you with that knowledge. Your rights come from your nature. You cannot be fully human without your natural rights. I can't believe this concept is up for discussion between educated people. Deer are not human beings. It is the nature of deer to be eaten by mountain lions. Mountain lions are their natural predators. Why is that true? The above is a stupid argument. All governments are evil with respect to there desire to suppress human rights. What people on earth has never had there natural human rights suppressed by government? None. Yes, that is why we have the second amendment. Here is an example of the power of the second amendment in the US.

Where does your intellect come from? Where do your emotions come from? Where do your senses come from? Where does your physical body come from? With your way of thinking, North Korea and ISIS are equivalent to the United States, England, Italy, Spain, or any modern western nation. With respect to the things you mention, and many more, yes the United States government was and continues to be evil, as all governments are. That is why it citizens must continue to improve and stay focused on preserving and promoting natural human rights. Governments throughout history favor tyranny and the suppression of human rights. That often comes about when the suppression of human rights comes from the perceived good intentions of those who have not experienced or have forgotten tyranny That is why the United States, a nation founded on the principals on natural human rights, set up a government of checks and balances to hobble government and thereby tyranny. That is why we have the second amendment.