Guns anyone?

[Davin]

From reading the first post, it seems like wanting guns are like a blanky to help hide insecurities that would be better addressed with proper counselling.

i guess you can also tell you therapists about how helpless you were went two guys armed with a baseball bat work you and your family over as they looted your house, oh but you can't as between a viral outbreak shutdown and no power you therapist won't be able to take your secular confession for failing our house hold.

I really wish I could understand what you're trying to say here.

The desire expressed is short sighted and counter productive to long term survival.

how many times has your home nation been invaded? ironically my countries invasion stopped when just about every man was armed with a cartridge firing gun. so again how is this not a long term solution? in the op outline there is no authorities or help coming. which is a real thing that has already happened several times in the last 20 or so years. the only thing that differs is in my scenario two catastrophes happen at the same time. setting up a 6 month or more scenario without the protections of our current society. I am simply asking you all to look at that situation, but you all keep changing it to fit your anti gun narrative. why can't you be honest with the op? don't like the answer you will give? don't like the idea of having to die for your principles?

That's not the desire expressed in the OP, this is something new. It's a better strategy to face opposition head on than trying to avoid it with dishonest argument tactics like this. And you have no idea what my stance on guns is, but you just went ahead and assumed incorrectly anyway. That's not honest.

People short sighted like that always forget the long supply chain required to keep the basic necessities they depend on. They go off for a week in the wilderness and come back thinking they would be able to survive without technology. It's actually kind of adorable.

It's also why a lot of post-apocalyptic "societies" in fiction make me cringe a lot.

so again if faced with what you do not like. do you roll over and die? do you succumb to the new post apocalyptic society do you fight to maintain your current way of life/world views?

You're way off in the weeds here. If you want to make me look foolish, then you're going to have to address what I'm saying and not what you're irrationally assuming.

Also, preppers always imagine themselves like vikings, going from village to village taking what they want. Unfortunately for most of them, by the time they make it to the next village they'll be too exhausted and weak to actually do anything.

have you never ridden  in a bus or car? do you know old diesel trucks can run off anything that burns? like old school busses who can carry 60 to 80 'invaders from village to village without them having to expend much effort.

Still, judging by the health state of most preppers, there isn't much to worry about from them.

Anyway, my position of guns has not changed with recent events because nothing in the recent events is different enough from past events.

this is the dishonest answer i was talking about. My OP question did not ask what is your current position on guns given the situation. I created a situation and asked the question. a question you went a long way round to avoid just to answer your own strawman.

You asked what it would take to change my mind then presented stale fictional scenarios and alluded to recent events. I'm sorry if such a weak post is not enough to sway me, I have high standards.

[Drich]

seer, youre uzing rightz in terms of natural law, i believe

natural law applies to organizms living in their natural state

the natural state of humanz is to live in societies

in societiez humans grant each other rights, some of which supercede others.

the freedom from stealing is one such right, by implication there iz no right to steal, under normal circumstancez.

are human societies consiztent with the natural perspective?

Not all beings have a tendency to herd, flock and gather to their own kind. But, do those that do participate in a society. Question: Is a cow herd a society. I personally don't think so and if one were to say they are I couldn't dispute it.  Society, it seems develops a - culture. Do cows have or develop a culture, I can't say. It seems a culture has to be developed from a cognizant effort, but cows aren't cognizant enough to reason out a culture. (I say) What I suspect is the natural gathering tendency lays the ground work for a culture or civilization to develop or be developed via reason.  One can then reason that there wasn't civilization until someone invented it and, until a cognizant entity came into "being".
   What became obvious to us is civilization was invented to take advantage of the many for the purposes of a few. Over time it became modified (many times)so the dominated could get a larger share of their labor, which this process still goes on today.  It also became understood that civilization was instituted by deception when a few gained control of the land, and in order for the others to be on it had to become subject to the few owners or owner.

  At the time civilization came into existence The inhabitants had to give up their natural rights 9existence)in exchange for man made rights, that is, living by the mandates of the land (societies) owners. The owner(s) of the land demand a fee from the inhabitants for living in the territory which today is represented by taxes. This is still an active process today. There are other things  to consider but it's to long of an explanation to undertake.
Civilizations fail and it will always be so because it's foundation is still rooted in and from the natural. In essence nature says, your not getting away with his buster and is continuously working against the artificial, and civilization say I'm eventfully going to beat you. True nature always wins because it always true and civilization is a lie. Nature will always be working against untruth because nature cannot lie, people can. Nature will overtake the lie because it is always present and active. A lie, an invention, and not natural has a life span and nature does not. Logic dictates that a lie cannot outlast nature.
The main answer to your post. One cannot create their own world, the way has to be found to live within the one that always is.

maybe if you are a dirt foot hippy pacifist. I am of industry. i do forge and in my own way beat back the natural world to provide apart of the infrastructure needed to create the world i want to live in. F your "nature." I do, and people like me create and provide what you see as the unseen hand of provenance. the invisible support that allows you to live a modern life style. a life completely unaware of what it takes to survive and live. you see the structure of society as a point of happenstance i see it in whatever governmental form it takes as a purposed built frame work made to support man's societal existence.

i specialize in my field and other's including you in their own fields. so we all don't have to all have the same survival tools. So long as we live in sustainable numbers mother nature will not only remain beaten but like a plague or virus man kind will eventually break the back of nature is it hasn't already. That is the real danger, not the resurgence of nature. we will though our various societies deplete this planet long before something in the cosmos claims us.

you also seem to have left out the landowners end of the societal deal. protection. anyone could grab land at one point or another. it was the one with the most and proficient weapons who took land and secured it. vassels paid tax to be protected from others

[xSilverPhinx]

don't be obtuse.
have i propagated anything? Have i extolled the need for guns? have i challenged any of your answers?

I just asked a question to see what type of people are here. We are two pages in at this point so if i had an agenda it would be known by now. Calm down dial the hate back a few notches and just read and respond to what is on page. no need to try and jump a head especially if there isnt anything to jump to.

I'm asking because my brother in law is a douche bag much like most of you who tends to lean towards the left. thought my dad and i were milisha/crazy people. someone broke into his shop, they stole 75K in tools and equipment, now the virus has got some people going into frenzy mode in the down town area he works in.

His value system much like most of yours are based on the idea of a utopian society. I find those who live in a less culturally diverse countries (all/most white) can hold out or play pretend society will never fail. but when reminded his value system is no longer at the top of the societal food chain, he like every other red blooded american (douchebaggery not withstanding) is not looking to be subjected by, or taken advantage of by people foreign or domestic who will force their will onto him.

I guess those such as yourself who live in a less culturally diverse part of the world can pretty much know that everyone who looks like you will think like you and there is no need to defend yourself because you all have agreed not to hurt one another.

Go ahead and call us communists or whatever other inane insult people like you like to throw around.

A rose by any other name would still the same.

Go on. You know you want to. All those inane insults in your head. Let them all out and feel better about yourself.

meh, I've got venues to bash you guys on.. this is a nice practice in playing nice.

then maybe we can take this discussion where freedom of speech is not something frown upon. there are other forums who all christians and atheist equal say. (I can get away with breaking you guys enmass and the admins allow it.)

I don't care to know what you do in your free time and the kinds of sites you visit. I really don't.

I do think it's sad that you spend time bashing entire demographics though. And before you say it, no, that's not what we do here. Very, very little of HAF is Christian-bashing.

You on the other hand, barge in here and expect to convert people. And when that doesn't go your way, you take to insulting people here. You honestly expect to feel welcome?

If you're what Christianity is, it's yet another reason not to be Christian.

[Old Seer]

or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

I think you might find modern research into animal behavior to be both enlightening and interesting.

Have already done so. 

So you disagree with it?

Some things yes, other things no.

[Davin]

or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

I think you might find modern research into animal behavior to be both enlightening and interesting.

Have already done so. 

So you disagree with it?

Some things yes, other things no.

But specifically here, you disagree with the many examples of animals expressing behaviors that indicate that stealing is a thing in the natural world.

[Drich]

You can fisk away to your heart's content. I'm talking about bungling your placement of quote tags, requiring your correspondent to repair the mistakes, else compound them. You did it twice in succession in your replies to me.

thanks for the correction


You presented a specific scenario, which I quoted (living in "'The Red Zone' — gang turf for the Seven Mile Bloods") in my question. I asked you how possessing a gun in such a situation would help me or my family be safer. Your response had nothing to do with that scenario. Instead you went off on a rant about "city wide looting and the burning of homes and business" which clearly does not answer my question.

The article i presented showed in a time of major civil unrest there was no police responses available to the korean community in LA riots of the 1990s. all the business owners of a given block of korean own businesses in la ba together and with their guns defended against men who wished to loot their businesses and destroy or burn down their homes and shops. so for 3 days and night these citizens fended off one mob after the other while all of the other businesses (90% of the total destruction done in the LA riots were to korean own businesses) So again IF you were living in a red zone in an emergency situation where the police stopped protecting people in those neighborhoods you could ban together and defend your home and family just as these korean americans did.

Still doesn't answer my question. You're attempting to conflate a violent riot with a neighborhood in which violence is common. Whether you recognize it or not, those are two different situations.

your question is in red my answer in black. The black answers the red by saying a gun would allow you to form a protective shield to you your family and your neighbors living in a red zone!!! how does this not answer your question??
?

Engaging in an armed standoff with roving mobs for days on end may seem like an admirable approach to you but I don't concur. Those people could very well have got themselves (and any family members with them) maimed or killed. I think that my life and the the lives of my family are infinitely more valuable than any and all material possessions.

where would you go if everything you had was there, and you were literally being hunted/targeted? again no police. but here are 30 high armed men of your same back grough neighbors family and friends. You would leave them because of principles concerning the use of a gun? if this is how most of you think you do not deserve the country you live in. if you will not fight for what is yours then please to not call us next time to fight for you.

Having a gun may prove useful in such an anarchic situation, or it may get me into a lethal confrontation that I might have avoided if I weren't depending on having a gun to get me out of trouble. Life is rarely as clear-cut as the fantasies of those who are militantly pro-gun.

says a man who has never carried a fire arm in public. how can you possible speak in good conscious what you mind set is or the mind set of others is when armed?
When armed the weight and responsibility is burdensome and overwhelming. most owners take super great care to stay out of trouble, and are constantly ensuring that we are within our rights and the law. to the point where i selectively carry now. so as to not be burdened with total situational awareness all the time.

It's clear you're not really interested in my position on guns in the US. Instead, you've made assumptions based on my comments. I'll spell it out for you. In my opinion, guns have their uses, but they are rarely the answer when it comes to interactions with other people.

ever been to a flea market with a gun?
always best prices very little haggling. intruth guns are not an interaction tool, they are a get out of personal harm or death tool. for that purpose they are the best option. as no one has to train very much to become lethal.

We'll leave aside those who've adopted a violent criminal lifestyle--nobody here is advocating that. Some gun owners in the US have worked themselves into a position of fetishizing their guns.

guns are super expensive. it would reason if you have more than one or two it then becomes a hobby, as you are not restoring a 67 mustang and buying all the kit needed to trick out your Ar.

Some of them dream of the day when they think they'll be justified in shooting somebody.

says the movies as judgy self righteous people who know nothing of the people or culture. These judgy self righteous types are the people who demand all have the same pov and value system they have. they will not tolerate independance or out of line thinking and behavior. Thankfully they are all brainwashed to hate guns. On the other hand the real progressives the ultra right who like and tolerate gun ownership do so as a means to defend their right to think say and do whatever they want, which includes those b-holes on the ultra left who hate independent thought. The ironic thing is the ultra left would censor gun ownership and the right to talk about it and the gun owners would use their guns to protect their rights to bash them.

To me that mindset is corrosive and unhealthy.

because like i said you guys do not allow or like unpopular speech.

There are far too many irresponsible gun owners in the US,

do you even check the numbers before you speak or do you just normally toe the line?
just under 40,000 gun deaths total. out of 340,000,000 people that 12.2 out of every 100K people.
More people are slated to die from this virus in fact more people almost doubled died from simple poisoning. that same year. mind you this number also includes all police activity as well. meaning 1/3 if not more of this number were shooting deaths by police officers defending themselves.

The media is the last place sensible people look for the truth. the media is nothing more than a propaganda machine. go to the source:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

and that has resulted in a disgusting and shameful level of needless, pointless bloodshed and death. Until there are better gun laws, that bloodshed and death will not decrease.

what are you talking about? from 1990 to 2013 gun related deaths were cut in half and the trend continues downward will ownership soars.
Your statement is a perfect example of someone being programed to think a certain way. you have little to no personal knowledge nor even exposure to fact outside of a tertiary source material in the way of government ran news.
https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/gun-violence-research/

You know practically nothing about the people here you've been ranting at. Instead of engaging in a genuine discussion you're making a lot of ridiculous assumptions.

so? how does this differ from your own assumptions on gun ownership? I also know i am a mixed race individuals and all per race people tend to put a certain foot forward when unchallenged and speaking of society. whites with general speak inclusivly black people tend to want to make it known, people who speak another primary language are pretty easy to identify. non westerners have a different value set and approach. westerners all think they are individuals and each one unique. I've been on the outside observing all 'you people' as i was never apart of a given group. can be wrong but not often.

PICK A DIRECTION. Are you so intimidated by me you have to just offer a counter to everything i say no matter if it has you even contradicting yourself?!?!? Do you want me to read and follow the rules or not? if yes then stop being pissy/threatening for me having done what you asked!

As a member of staff, it falls upon me to help maintain this site, and help keep the discussions here civil. I don't need to threaten you to do that, and I haven't. What I've done is pointed out the facts as they pertain to your behavior on the site. You've been a rather unpleasant guest here up to this point, and if you don't follow the rules you'll get the ban you appear to be striving for, which honestly wouldn't bother me. You seem to have come here with a rotten chip on your shoulder. I don't think you have any intention of being a long-term member of this site, but are merely looking for affirmation of some prejudices you've saddled yourself with.

You said you wanted to answer questions about Christianity. I have a couple of questions for you.

1. Do you consider yourself a good representative of Christianity? [/quote] the religion or the tradition no. But the christianity Jesus himself modeled the christianity in the bible??? absolutely.
Christianity is not about pretending to be someone you are not but rather finding redemption or atonement for what or who you are.
most of you would not known biblical christianity if i kicked your teeth in with it. Because most are unfamiliar with the bible, and only know of the christian tradition set forth by the church of the dark ages. this stoic and falsely humble vision was highly shat on by god he hated the overly pious and self righteous. to the point that the most religious men of his day had him killed because he single hangly was undermining everything these men knew to be holy.

Then look at how christ saw the gentiles/unbelievers. again not a huge fan. did not move to help them very much.

So that said my model here is of a man being shot at from all sides defending my word thoughts and principles from everyone else here. then when i press one of you as i have been pressed, my very nature is challenged.

2. Do you think any sensible person would want to learn about Christianity from a person who behaved as you've done on this site?

any self respecting person would because again sport, i get to be me. I don't have to filter my word thought or belief through some numb doctrine who makes me pretend to be something i am not. How stoo-ped do you think God is? do you think he can't see through a christian facade? if I came here pretending to be nice and rolled over and let you guy kick at what i believed and did not push back, but was steep in anger and vitriol, but because i played the part i was found righteous?

I am found righteous before God despite my works not because of them. salvation is a gift from God that no man can boast of it. good deeds or bad.

My only rules are to Love God with all my being and my neighbor as my self. I'm not being paid to do this. i have been doing this a long time, and do not need the practice. i am here to simply give you the truth so you can make your own decisions.

It seems probable that if you manage to stick around, you'll be the one to get the last word in discussion with me. There is nothing novel in your chest-thumping and vitriol, and your aggressive Christianity is of no interest to me.

this... this thread is not christianity. this thread is nothing more than a litmus test.

Who i am speaking with and how people here think given most of you are not mericans.

[Recusant]

The OP invites a discussion that isn't particularly interesting.

it must been hard growing up for you. As you Never have anything nice to say and everything you do say is super critical often stabbing at self worth.

The comment was about the topic, not about you, Drich. The rest of your projection and snivelling about your supposed poor treatment is irrelevant.

It's been chewed on so extensively in the US that it's nothing but a heap of saliva-soaked rawhide at this point.

that is until most moderates and slight left citizens gave up on the BS most of you can still hold on to, and started buying guns enmass. to the point where we have never had such guns and ammo shortages here. which is why i decided to ask you guys if it would change your mind.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52189349

I read your source. It looks like the basis of your claim that the spike in gun sales seen in the US is due to "moderates and slight left citizens" going out to buy guns "enmass" is one sentence:

"And a gun is cheap insurance against that," says the man, who grew up in Berkeley, California and now lives in Chicago.

Is it necessary to explain to you why that does not even begin to qualify as evidence? I don't know who the people are who've been buying guns and ammunition in the US, and I don't think you do, either. Perhaps they are moderates and slight left, or perhaps they're just the usual regular customers, who've spiked the sale of guns and ammunition in the past.

The rest of the world (outside places like Somalia) has long since left it behind, and mostly just watches the gory circus in the US in horrified bemusement.

and how many first generation or illegal somalis do you have in your neighborhood? Again it is easy to preach social collectives whe you all share the same pigment and back story.

I don't know, and I don't care. I don't keep track of who lives near me who is also an immigrant. Let me explain something about myself: I've lived the majority of my adult life in what in the past were described as ghettos--high crime areas where I as a white person was definitely in the minority. I grew up in a rural area and my family owns and uses guns. I own a couple myself, but never felt the need to own one for personal protection because I know that while in some rare cases they might prove useful for that, they're largely irrelevant.

I've listened to gun fetishists yapping about their fetish for far too long to find it interesting.

It did however inspire a discussion that  appears to have some interest for members here. Drich may get around to participating in that discussion, and I'd be interested in what he might contribute to it.

Remains to be seen whether he's here exclusively to push an agenda while indulging his rancor, or is willing to engage in civil discourse. There's a notable trend to one and a sad absence of the other, though.

i have no idea what you are on about here. Essentially if i am reading this right. you have hijacked my thread/changed the subject. and are baiting me in another thread to break the rules, now you are calling me out for not allowing your attempt to hijack this thread and allow you to change the nature of the OP i started?

Fine your web site what is the new topic?

I didn't hijack this thread, the members who contributed to it found other things more interesting than the OP to talk about.

You've made a false inference when you assert that I'm baiting you to break the rules.

It's not up to you to "allow" something or other in this thread or elsewhere on this site. There is a long tradition here of letting threads take whatever course interests the membership, and we're not about to change that to please you. If you're not interested in other avenues of discussion that have opened in this thread you're welcome to continue to focus on guns.

[Old Seer]

or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

I think you might find modern research into animal behavior to be both enlightening and interesting.

Have already done so. 

So you disagree with it?

Some things yes, other things no.

But specifically here, you disagree with the many examples of animals expressing behaviors that indicate that stealing is a thing in the natural world.

There's a difference between ownership and possession. Neither fox nor bear is aware that there is anything such as stealing. Stealing belongs with civil law. One cannot impose civil law on the fox or the bear. Stealing is an invented term used to describe an unauthorized change of possession. The unauthorized removal is designated a wrong. The fox and bear have no concept of right and wrong.
At a time past beings designated people today were no different then the fox and bear. In order to maintain possession of something they cognitively came up with a way to maintain possession by making it wrong to  intrude on a designated ownership. Possession then changes to ownership by decree. You're having a problem (which is common) understanding the difference civil and natural. Civilization is a regulation of animal behavior. Nature does no have a designated decree. Once a decree is made you step out of the natural and invent something that did not exist previous. What you brought into existence is considered artificial, or, that which wasn't in nature. See Blacks law book [natural man and artificial man]
  The bear inadvertently lost the whereabouts of a piece of the kill. The fox made a change of possession not a steal because stealing hasn't been designated for the fox. The bear did not "own" the kill but was in possession of it. Ownership is a maintained possession so the bear would have to take the kill where ever it goes to own it. For you (civilized) to maintain ownership by decree of your possessions, you must keep possession under your control. You loose your wallet and someone else found it. They are in possession of it. By civil standards you lost possession of it but by law you retain ownership of it. IF, the person finding it abides by civil standards it get turned over to the police and they take possession of it. After 30 days if not claimed possession and ownership are transferred to the finder. Neither fox nor bear come under such a process. If the fox sneaks over and yanks the kill out of the bear's mouth and makes off with it, the bear lost possession and ownership because there's' no civil law governing fox and bear. Notice the difference.  The bear losses both possession and ownership if it walks away from the kill. You loose your wallet, maintain ownership but loose possession, There is no such arrangement for the fox and bear.  Stealing is nowhere in the nature of bear and fox.
  By the way. I'm trying to get back to the OP. I took a long way around to establish reasons why one needs firearms. But it went to long so--- we do not live in a world that can give up fire arms. There's are to many foxes and bears around identifying as people, and smarter then the natural foxes and bears. 

[billy rubin]

i am neither a bear nor a fox.

the world nature providez me iz not a bear world nor a fox world.

i dont see why what is cuztomary for a bear or a fox should be customary for me, any more than all of uz together should attempt toive according to the world nature provided the tapeworm.

if nature is the meazure of absolutes, then the first abzolute must be that nature is different for every organism, and rules or even drivez are not interchangeable.

the nature of a bear world or a fox world is i terezting in the abstract, but it appearz irrelevant to me in my interactions with human beings.


just sayin

[Davin]

or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

I think you might find modern research into animal behavior to be both enlightening and interesting.

Have already done so. 

So you disagree with it?

Some things yes, other things no.

But specifically here, you disagree with the many examples of animals expressing behaviors that indicate that stealing is a thing in the natural world.

There's a difference between ownership and possession.

Yep.

Neither fox nor bear is aware that there is anything such as stealing.[...]

Maybe not the same exact concept, but then not even all us humans agree on concepts the exact same way, so I don't think that this distinction is important. The modern (later than the 1950s), research into animal behavior shows that many animals do not like things being stolen from them and tend to protect things from being stolen from others in the same species as well as from other species. There are examples of animals taking something and putting in a safe place, and then looking for it if it's taken. There are many examples of stealing in the animal kingdom.

It's true they don't have courts or police officers, but I don't think that the concept of stealing requires those things to exist.

We evolved from common ancestors, it's only natural to find traits and behaviors that we share with other animals.

[Old Seer]

From Blacks Law Dictionary.

What is NATURAL PERSON
A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.

What is ARTIFICIAL PERSONS?
Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. 1 HI. Comm. 123. Chapman v. Brewer, 43 Neb. 800, 02 N. W. 320, 47 Am. St. Rep. 770 ; Smith v. Trust Co., 4 Ala. 508.

I don't agree with term "Human" as it is used here. I would replace human with person.
[Everyone is naturally born.]

[xSilverPhinx]

or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

I think you might find modern research into animal behavior to be both enlightening and interesting.

Have already done so. 

So you disagree with it?

Some things yes, other things no.

What do you call this?

[billy rubin]

From Blacks Law Dictionary.

What is NATURAL PERSON
A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.

What is ARTIFICIAL PERSONS?
Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. 1 HI. Comm. 123. Chapman v. Brewer, 43 Neb. 800, 02 N. W. 320, 47 Am. St. Rep. 770 ; Smith v. Trust Co., 4 Ala. 508.

I don't agree with term "Human" as it is used here. I would replace human with person.
[Everyone is naturally born.]

is ^^^this relevant to the discussion of natural law?

it appears to be a definition of a person according to society, which by definition (so far) does not conform to natural law.

but perhaps this discussion is over my head.

[Old Seer]

or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

I think you might find modern research into animal behavior to be both enlightening and interesting.

Have already done so. 

So you disagree with it?

Some things yes, other things no.

What do you call this?

A changing of possession.

[xSilverPhinx]

What do you call this?

A changing of possession.

'A changing of possession' is a bit broad, don't you think? Stealing could also be defined as a changing of possession.

Donations are also a changing of possession, though voluntary. Unlike stealing, in which something is taken by force. In the lion versus hyenas scenario it was definitely not voluntary. The carcass was taken by force, very much like stealing.

Oh no, I hope this doesn't become an argument over definitions!