The argument went that there was a time in England when people couldn't own their own land, but rights "evolved" to allow private ownership. The fact that people couldn't own land didn't mean they didn't have an inherent right to ownership, instead it meant that right had been "oppressed" by those in control like "Governments".
Today I was thinking about how violent convicted criminals are given the right to life, even after taking it from others (and in doing so should forfeit their own), but babies are killed every day having done absolutely nothing wrong. In the case of abortion, the right to life for that child is being oppressed.
The only thing that changes is the level/quantity of oppression, not the rights themselves. Most of the time at this point the "rights evolutionist" will start to argue something like "gay marriage" as being an evolution of rights, but this is a fabricated right based on a human construct of marriage (which is not natural in itself like life, but developed and arranged by humans.)
Rights are that which all humans share. A few of these are: A right to life. A right to self defense and protection. A right to ownership. Any attempt to limit such rights is oppression.
It became clear that it is two things may cause people to try to oppress others rights:
1. Fear.
2. Arrogance.
I don't understand fear, but it is apparent that this drives the anti gun "banning" crowd. Just because they are scared of an item, they think no one should be allowed it. See: Hoplophobia (Which explains this proposed legislation by Feinstein.) But here's a little History lesson on Gun Control by Rick Pratt.
Arrogance I do understand. It's because they don't see a need for it, you shouldn't be allowed to have it. It's the arrogance of feeling like they know better than the person who wants to own a gun, so you shouldn't argue with them. (Can you imagine someone saying this about Alcohol? Remember prohibition? Or how about NY banning soft drinks? What comes next, coffee? I say the Government can keep their hands off my choices and rights, until such time that they infringe on someone else's.)
The thing is I have no problem if you don't want to own a gun, that's your right to choose, but when you try to oppress someone else's right because "you don't believe in it" shows the ultimate in arrogance. Here's a little primer on "Rights". "The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men." Ayn Rand
I think what is even worse is when someone tries to dismiss your argument, or right to an opinion (and that you should shut up) because it doesn't affect you. An opinion is not affected by how it pertains to you, for that matter when someone sees what they believe to be an oppression of rights it is in everyone's best interest to have an opinion and voice it.
However you will find that those so willing to have rights taken away are the first ones that resort to both name calling and convoluting the discussion with weak or nonexistent analogies, as well as telling you you're opinion is irrelevant. They seem too weak in their personal beliefs (Albeit strong in ideology and rhetoric) to have real, open, discussion.
Disagree? That's ok because it is a human right to have different opinions, but as long as my opinion doesn't infringe upon your rights, I actually hold the moral high ground.
