Guns

[Age]

Gun ownership is guaranteed to some, not guaranteed to all.

So, when you say, 'it is a right', what are actually meaning is 'it is a right' to only a chosen some, right?

And the license is a tool for excluding those to whom ownership is not guaranteed.

So, again, ' the right to own a gun to protect "one's" 'self' ', in that country', is afforded to only a select chosen some, of that country, correct?

There’s something wrong with this process, but that’s the way it is.

There are more than a few things that are very, very Wrong with 'that process'.

Which by the way, obviously, does not have to be 'the way it is', at all.

I stand by what I said as well as what you said I said.

So, you only stand by what you said here, but cannot back up, support, elaborate, clarify, rationalize, nor justify what you said and wrote here, right?

[commonsense]

So, when you say, 'it is a right', what are actually meaning is 'it is a right' to only a chosen some, right?



So, again, ' the right to own a gun to protect "one's" 'self' ', in that country', is afforded to only a select chosen some, of that country, correct?


There are more than a few things that are very, very Wrong with 'that process'.

Which by the way, obviously, does not have to be 'the way it is', at all.

I stand by what I said as well as what you said I said.

So, you only stand by what you said here, but cannot back up, support, elaborate, clarify, rationalize, nor justify what you said and wrote here, right?

I agree with the implications made by you.

Are you saying that you cannot support, elaborate, clarify, rationalize, nor justify what you said and implied here?

[commonsense]

To clarify: a right is something that gives permission to do something, have something or be something. A right is not automatically absolute. IF a right were to be specified as absolute, it would apply in all cases. But there are no rights that apply in all instances. There are no absolute rights. The right to own a gun is a right possessed only by some. It is a right, but it is only extended to some (e.g. those who are not felons). The right to life is not extended to everyone. The right to free speech is extended to everyone, but it is limited by certain circumstances, such as not allowable for hate speech. What I have said here is consistent with what you, Age, have said here.

[Age]

I stand by what I said as well as what you said I said.

So, you only stand by what you said here, but cannot back up, support, elaborate, clarify, rationalize, nor justify what you said and wrote here, right?

I agree with the implications made by you.

And, to you, what are the, exact supposed, implications, which were, supposedly, made by me here?

Are you saying that you cannot support, elaborate, clarify, rationalize, nor justify what you said and implied here?
[/quote]

The claims and statements that I have made here I can support, elaborate, clarify, rationalize, and/or justify

Looking back I have just noticed that I asked you a question in regards to some thing that it was not you who said nor write here. So, apologies for this.

[Age]

To clarify: a right is something that gives permission to do something, have something or be something.

1. Who has 'the right' to 'give' 'a right', to others? And, who 'have' 'the right', to the one who 'gives' 'rights', to others?

2. Following your clarification here, absolutely every human beings have 'different rights', right?

A right is not automatically absolute.

Certainly not by and according to your definition and clarification above here.

IF a right were to be specified as absolute, it would apply in all cases. But there are no rights that apply in all instances.

Are you absolutely sure of this?

There are no absolute rights.

Again, are you absolutely sure?

Or, maybe better asked, could your definition/clarification above here may not be the best or most suitable definition, and clarification?

The right to own a gun is a right possessed only by some. It is a right, but it is only extended to some (e.g. those who are not felons). The right to life is not extended to everyone. The right to free speech is extended to everyone, but it is limited by certain circumstances, such as not allowable for hate speech. What I have said here is consistent with what you, Age, have said here.

But, if I recall correctly, I have never said nor even thought that 'a right' is 'something that gives permission to do something, have something or be something', nor some thing that I agree with nor even accept.

[commonsense]

To clarify: a right is something that gives permission to do something, have something or be something.

1. Who has 'the right' to 'give' 'a right', to others? And, who 'have' 'the right', to the one who 'gives' 'rights', to others?

Interesting question. It could be that a majority vote, a royalty or a deity is who is the authority to grant permission or a right.

2. Following your clarification here, absolutely every human beings have 'different rights', right?

You are right, absolutely.

A right is not automatically absolute.

Certainly not by and according to your definition and clarification above here.

You are correct.

IF a right were to be specified as absolute, it would apply in all cases. But there are no rights that apply in all instances.

Are you absolutely sure of this?

Absolutely. One way for me to add credence to this would be to ask you if you can name a right that is actually absolute. If you can, then I would have to withdraw my statement.

There are no absolute rights.

Again, are you absolutely sure?

Again, yes.

Or, maybe better asked, could your definition/clarification above here may not be the best or most suitable definition, and clarification?

It may not be the best, but I think it’s reasonable and therefore suitable for this discussion.

The right to own a gun is a right possessed only by some. It is a right, but it is only extended to some (e.g. those who are not felons). The right to life is not extended to everyone. The right to free speech is extended to everyone, but it is limited by certain circumstances, such as not allowable for hate speech. What I have said here is consistent with what you, Age, have said here.

But, if I recall correctly, I have never said nor even thought that 'a right' is 'something that gives permission to do something, have something or be something', nor some thing that I agree with nor even accept.

I am merely saying that what I have written doesn’t contradict what you have written, which is different than saying that you agree with all my statements.

[Age]

To clarify: a right is something that gives permission to do something, have something or be something.

1. Who has 'the right' to 'give' 'a right', to others? And, who 'have' 'the right', to the one who 'gives' 'rights', to others?

Interesting question. It could be that a majority vote, a royalty or a deity is who is the authority to grant permission or a right.

This sounds like a 'self-given authority', over others, to me.

Which then makes me wonder how and who could, legitimately, 'give' "themselves", one, or another, 'a' or 'the' 'right' to have control and power over another?

2. Following your clarification here, absolutely every human beings have 'different rights', right?

You are right, absolutely.

A right is not automatically absolute.

Certainly not by and according to your definition and clarification above here.

You are correct.

IF a right were to be specified as absolute, it would apply in all cases. But there are no rights that apply in all instances.

Are you absolutely sure of this?

Absolutely. One way for me to add credence to this would be to ask you if you can name a right that is actually absolute. If you can, then I would have to withdraw my statement.

Could there exist, to you, for example, a 'universal, or absolut, right', (which has absolutely nothing at all to do with the so-called 'rights' that you human beings 'give' to, and/or have over, each other), and which is built intrinsically within and known instinctively, but which could be overridden with and by faulty, wrong, or distorted thoughts or thinking?

If yes, then could there be an absolute, and universal, right' like; A 'right to not be abused'.

Which would obviously be applied to every thing, that is; when the definition of the word 'abuse' is in relation to misuse?

Could absolutely ever thing have a 'right, in Life' to not be 'abused/misused?

Obviously for any thing to be 'misused' would be to be going against its purpose, in Life.

And, surely every thing has 'a right' to fulfill its purpose, on Life, right?

There are no absolute rights.

Again, are you absolutely sure?

Again, yes.

Okay. But, when one says that they are 'absolutely sure' of some thing, then this implies that there is absolutely no possibility of any other thing regarding 'that thing', right?

Or, maybe better asked, could your definition/clarification above here may not be the best or most suitable definition, and clarification?

It may not be the best, but I think it’s reasonable and therefore suitable for this discussion.

Okay, so you 'think' that it is reasonable.

The right to own a gun is a right possessed only by some. It is a right, but it is only extended to some (e.g. those who are not felons). The right to life is not extended to everyone. The right to free speech is extended to everyone, but it is limited by certain circumstances, such as not allowable for hate speech. What I have said here is consistent with what you, Age, have said here.

But, if I recall correctly, I have never said nor even thought that 'a right' is 'something that gives permission to do something, have something or be something', nor some thing that I agree with nor even accept.

I am merely saying that what I have written doesn’t contradict what you have written, which is different than saying that you agree with all my statements.

I think you will find that that some of what you have written will, and did, contradict with what I have been saying, and meaning, here.

[accelafine]

To clarify: a right is something that gives permission to do something, have something or be something.

1. Who has 'the right' to 'give' 'a right', to others? And, who 'have' 'the right', to the one who 'gives' 'rights', to others?

Interesting question. It could be that a majority vote, a royalty or a deity is who is the authority to grant permission or a right.

2. Following your clarification here, absolutely every human beings have 'different rights', right?

You are right, absolutely.

A right is not automatically absolute.

Certainly not by and according to your definition and clarification above here.

You are correct.

IF a right were to be specified as absolute, it would apply in all cases. But there are no rights that apply in all instances.

Are you absolutely sure of this?

Absolutely. One way for me to add credence to this would be to ask you if you can name a right that is actually absolute. If you can, then I would have to withdraw my statement.

There are no absolute rights.

Again, are you absolutely sure?

Again, yes.

Or, maybe better asked, could your definition/clarification above here may not be the best or most suitable definition, and clarification?

It may not be the best, but I think it’s reasonable and therefore suitable for this discussion.

The right to own a gun is a right possessed only by some. It is a right, but it is only extended to some (e.g. those who are not felons). The right to life is not extended to everyone. The right to free speech is extended to everyone, but it is limited by certain circumstances, such as not allowable for hate speech. What I have said here is consistent with what you, Age, have said here.

But, if I recall correctly, I have never said nor even thought that 'a right' is 'something that gives permission to do something, have something or be something', nor some thing that I agree with nor even accept.

I am merely saying that what I have written doesn’t contradict what you have written, which is different than saying that you agree with all my statements.

Well you can't say different 'than' anyway. It's a grammatical abomination (Americans take great pride in those). But hey, who cares? Language is just noises and not something to be taken seriously. I'm sure we can all communicate adequately using our eyes accompanied by grunting sounds.

[commonsense]

[quote=accelafine post_id=715432 time=1718397268 user_id=

Well you can't say different 'than' anyway. It's a grammatical abomination (Americans take great pride in those). But hey, who cares? Language is just noises and not something to be taken seriously. I'm sure we can all communicate adequately using our eyes accompanied by grunting sounds.
[/quote]

Would “different from” be to your satisfaction?

[accelafine]

[quote=accelafine post_id=715432 time=1718397268 user_id=

Well you can't say different 'than' anyway. It's a grammatical abomination (Americans take great pride in those). But hey, who cares? Language is just noises and not something to be taken seriously. I'm sure we can all communicate adequately using our eyes accompanied by grunting sounds.

Would “different from” be to your satisfaction?
[/quote]

Not 'my' satisfaction. grunt grunt eyes left eyes right eyes lowered grunt again...and again....

[Alexiev]

Well you can't say different 'than' anyway. It's a grammatical abomination (Americans take great pride in those). But hey, who cares? Language is just noises and not something to be taken seriously. I'm sure we can all communicate adequately using our eyes accompanied by grunting sounds.

Since someone just "said" "different than", you clearly CAN say it. Neither is it ungrammatical, since "than" can serve as a preposition. However, "different from" is preferrable, although "than" is acceptable in American English, a language in which we actually pronounce the letter "r" at the end of words.

"Rights" are nothing more or less than obligations on the part of other people. The right to bear arms imposes obligations on the government prohibiting it from outlawing gun ownership. What, exactly, these obligations comprise is a matter of much debate.

[accelafine]

Well you can't say different 'than' anyway. It's a grammatical abomination (Americans take great pride in those). But hey, who cares? Language is just noises and not something to be taken seriously. I'm sure we can all communicate adequately using our eyes accompanied by grunting sounds.

Since someone just "said" "different than", you clearly CAN say it. Neither is it ungrammatical, since "than" can serve as a preposition. However, "different from" is preferrable, although "than" is acceptable in American English, a language in which we actually pronounce the letter "r" at the end of words.

"Rights" are nothing more or less than obligations on the part of other people. The right to bear arms imposes obligations on the government prohibiting it from outlawing gun ownership. What, exactly, these obligations comprise is a matter of much debate.

What a moron.

[accelafine]

And now the furious googling. 'Ooh look. Meriam Webster McDikshiny says 'different than' acceptable in 'American english' Gee. I guess that ends the discussion then

[Alexiev]

What a moron.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

[Harbal]

However, "different from" is preferrable, although "than" is acceptable in American English, a language in which we actually pronounce the letter "r" at the end of words.

If you must pronounce it, it should be in the middle.