Will somebody please explain to me why gun ownership is a "right"?

[Pert_UK]

Don't just say, "Because it's in the 2nd amendment" - that's a circular argument at best.

I want some better reasons than "Because some people decided it was a right" - I want a reason, not the reported (and variously interpreted) opinions of some other people.

Why isn't it a privilege allowed by law, rather than a human right?

As a follow up, if you believe it is a "right", why do you think that the vast majority of the rest of the world doesn't think it is?

I can see how self-defense could be considered a right, but the means to that end (i.e. a specific type of weapon) can't possibly be a right in itself, can it?

[YankeyMCC]

1. organized militias

What the Founding fathers, at least many, were thinking about were organized militias for defense of the country.

It was seen as a balance or check against the need to have a standing army, a way to ensure a republican form of government. Many recognized that a standing army was a series threat to republican government, and in fact the supporters of creating a standing army faught for it's creation based on the fact that it was be used to protect the nations finacial interests.

The best way to ensure republican governemtn is not individual rights but public participation and civic duty. The framers of the 2nd amendment wanted to ensure states and localities could effectively raise and sustain a local militia.

[MrUnderhill]

3. Sorry, no.

That's a big part of the 2A...

But the reason they wanted a "right" to have guns was that they had just overthrown a government and were against government having too much power. You can't overthrow a government if the government can forbid your right to own the implements of their overthrow.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

[Trajan]

8. Ehem ...

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

THAT, Sir, is a quote from the Declaration of Independence ...

It is NOT any part of the United States Constitution, the actual compact that defines our government structure and the right it's citizens possess ....

Though the Declaration of Independence is a wonderful document, a clarion call to the oppressed of the world to rise up and take charge of their own destinies: it is not the law of the land ...

There is NO language in the US Constitution that permits you to 'abolish' Constitutional government through the use of armed insurrection .... The Second Amendment of the US Constitution was NOT intended to permit the ownership of weapons so that citizens may rise up and throw down the very Constitution that encapsulates that amendment ....

You seem to be confused about the precedence and priorities of these documents .... One declares a break with the past: the other defines a governmental system of the present and future .... dont confuse the two ...

BTW ... One post is anti evolution: another is anti-gun regulation ... Mind you: it is perfectly ok to possess such beliefs ... but I am beginning to note a preponderance of 'conservative' positions taken by a few posters ....

It isnt wrong to embrace such ideas, but this is a forum for Democrats, Liberals and Progressives .... why would someone want to enter such forums if they do not embrace the philosophies which define the Democratic, Liberal or Progressive positions ? ...

DU is a not a conservative forum ....

[MrUnderhill]

11. There was no request for a Constitutional argument.

In fact the poster specifically asked for something OTHER than 2A grounds. (s)He wants to know WHY it's a "right".

Also, the Constitution does NOT "define" what rights we posses, it "recognizes" them. The concept is that they were,are,and forever will be "rights" - separate from whether some governing body recognizes them. You are correct that the Declaration is not "the law of the land", but neither was it when it was written... it was as statement of our collective rights APART from that established law.

It is also evidence of the priorities and (dare I say?) "values" of the men who also wrote the Constitution. It is more than reasonable (it is compelling) that the men who had just taken arms to overthrow a government - believed that they must retain the power to do so again if needed. They said as much.

[YankeyMCC]

21. Missing the point

The framers of the consitution wanted to protect republican government. Actually many did, many also thought of the public as rable, neigther faction wanted the people to "overthrow" the consitutional government.

The first faction was not after protection of the right to "overthrow" because a republican government was synonomous with the people. They were trying to protect the people in the form of their republican government by ensuring militias had a place and guaruntee in the consitution.

The second faction didn't think the people should have the right. They saw the revolution as their (the elite, the rich, the "neo-noble") cliam to rule themselves and the people under them in the Americas.

Unless you advocate individuals owning things like tanks and high explosives, and in large quanities, then the "overthrow" argument is simply impractical and ignores reality.

[MrUnderhill]

27. Nope.

"Unless you advocate individuals owning things like tanks and high explosives, and in large quanities, then the "overthrow" argument is simply impractical and ignores reality."

I don't have to be arguing that at all. I don't have to accept that the founding fathers correctly anticipated every technological change.

They DID intend for people to be able to own the means to overthrow a tyrannical government. The logical extension of their priorities WOULD allow for tanks etc... But that doesn't mean I have to support that understanding. But it is why THEY believed we had the right.

[YankeyMCC]

30. curious

on what you are basing your conviction on what THEY believed?

I'm basing my statements on Jefferson's and Hamilton's and others biographies and writings about how to ensure a republican governement and the needs for a standing army for the large nation they were forming.

It seems to me you are projecting what you want the 2nd amendment to mean onto the meaning of the document.

The "overthrow" of the US government is the periodic election of a new administration and congress, not armed rebellion.

The two largest factions, the Federalists and Republicans, had no reason to enable armed rebellion. In fact it would be contrary to their purposes. And as someone else pointed out the amendment allowed having cutting edge technology of the time in the hands of populace so if you are basing your position on the need to be able to raise an armed rebellion then you have to allow much more than guns.

[MrUnderhill]

32. Again... I'm not making the Constitutional argument

"The "overthrow" of the US government is the periodic election of a new administration and congress, not armed rebellion."

Really? Been reading DU much lately?

What if that government takes over the process itself so that the people CAN'T elect a new one? Isn't that what's claimed here lately?


Seen the number of posts leading up to the election where people talked about NEEDING guns now because this was going to become a civil/revolutionary war?


You are recycling 2A arguments re: whether or not the Constitution guarantees an individual right or a collective right. That isn't what is under discussion.

On what do I base my theory that they believed in the right to overthrow a government? They had just done it!

[YankeyMCC]

35. They

overthrew a monarchy that they no longer regarded as a legitimit repulbican government, at least for the people in America.

You seem caught up on "consitutional argument". I'm talking about it all, what the framers were trying to accomplish. As I said in my first post it isn't about "rights" they only "natural rights" the founders believed in are spelled out in the declaration and although it lists changing a tyranical government it does not list gun ownership.

They way to protect against tyranical government is to ensure republican governemnt and the way to do that is to ensure public participation and responsibility. Thus local militias.

And if a government can take over the electoral process it can certainly monopolize military might. In fact it has, and that is why so many saw the need to counter the existance of a standing army.

Again, it isn't about indivdual rights it's about responsibility and civc duty. Indivudual gun ownership does little to nothing to ensure our freedoms unless it is in the context of organized local militias, in other words unless it is in support of civic duty and responsibility.

[MrUnderhill]

36. Read it again.

"the only 'natural rights' the founders believed in are spelled out in the declaration"


They said "AMONG THESE" are life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. By definition that says there are more.

[YankeyMCC]

40. Alright

let me try again.

It's not about individual rights, it's about ensuring republican government and public responsibilities.

[MrUnderhill]

48. You claim you aren't talking about the 2A?

The question was "why is there a 'right' as opposed to a legal priveledge". You're argument is "there ISN'T".

We can argue about whether there IS such a right (there is) and whether it is guranteed by the 2A (it is). But that isn't the question here. There question was WHY is it a "right" vs. a "priveledge".

[YankeyMCC]

49. And

I'm saying it isn't a question of a "right" or "privledge" for indivdual gun ownership.

Let's not work with blinders on. The question didn't come out of a vacuum.

The reason people see individual gun ownership as a right is because they percieve 2nd amendment part of the "Bill of Rights" to name it a right.

This isn't the case. There is only a single "Right" the "Bill of Rights" is designed to protect and that is the right to republican government.

There is no right to individual gun ownership, it's not claimed anywhere in the Founders writings, it's not listed anywhere in classical and enlightenment writings about republican theory of government from which most if not all of the founders drew their political education from.

The only right relavent to the discussion and the question is the right to republican government.

[MrUnderhill]

51. On a humorously related note. What if THAT is Bush's PLAN??

Appoint judges who will LITERALLY interpret the Constitutional right to a "republican form of government"???

"Sorry Mrs. Clinton.... we know you 'won' the Electoral College and Popular Vote... but the Constitution clearly requires a Republican form of government... so Jeb Bush is hereby declared the 44th President". Supreme Court ruling on Bush v. Clinton by a unanimous vote of 4-0 (with one Bush appointees held up in the Senate and four other justices dying mysteriously of food poisoning in the cafeteria).

[YankeyMCC]

52. : )

You know it always annoys me when I have to write (the theory of government not the political party) when I talk about republican government. And I've stopped doing it all the time, I guess this is what I get for being so lax. :)

[Lefty48197]

79. The Constitutionalists supported a federal government, not a Republican

one.

[Columbia]

83. Lowercase republican

Not upper.

[Massacure]

89. It is legal in switzerland, and they don't have crime problems.

The problem is with peoples attitudes, not with the guns themselves.

HE and missiles should be available to the U.S. population. Hell the entire population should be trained to use them.

[Roland of Gilead]

84. gun ownership is not a conservative idea

Wow! this is my first post on this forum, and already I think I may not come back! You think gun ownership is a "conservative" idea? I voted a straight democrat ticket (in AL no less), even writing in names where only GOP candidates were running. I have voted in every election (fed, state, local) since 1996 and have voted for one GOP candidate ever (a sheriff who had the vast majority of support from his deputies). I am pro choice, pro gay rights, pro socialized medicine (hell I am a socialist thru and thru to be honest). I also belive all power stems from the barrel of a gun. An so I own about 20 guns. Not just double barreled or single shot shotguns and bolt rifles for hunting, I also own civilian versions of NATO issue automatic battle rifles, and some of those evil Glock handguns. There are Glock and Ruger stickers next to my Kerry/Edwards sticker on my truck. Does this mean I should leave this forum? Or maybe I should just pretend to be anti-constitutional rights because its the trendy thing for democrats to do? I have a right to keep and bear arms. It says so in the Bill of Rights. The question is why do some of you think you have the right to tell me that I can not keep and bear arms? As for the rest of the world being largely disarmed, that is a post WW2 occurance, and not a healthy one IMO at all.

If I am going to be met with replies like the one above, my participation on this DU is going to be short lived indeed.

[Columbia]

85. Welcome to DU!

I think you should stick around. You are in good company. There are plenty of us Democrats who believe in and support RKBA and freedom in general.

:toast:

[jody]

86. Welcome to DU and don't worry about such replies as you cited.

If the author offends you, then use to place the person on "Ignore" and your problem is solved.

I note that you are from AL and so am I.

Again, welcome to DU. :hi:

[Paladin]

87. It's "Democrats" With A Capital "D"..........

....and your statement that Democrats are supposedly "...anti-constitutional rights because its the trendy thing...to do" is a gross insult, revealing a lot about your true nature and beliefs. If that's your attitude, why don't you follow your instincts and haul ass? Do us all a favor......

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Roland of Gilead]

108. All Power Stems from the Barrel of a Gun, and you have NONE, democrat

"My attitude" as you so eloquently put it, is "If you don't take responsibility for yourself, JUST WHO DO YOU EXPECT TO DO IT FOR YOU?" I am sick and tired of those of us on the left who have decided that someone else can just be responsible for their safety and their property. Not only that, but because you are afraid to take responsibility for yourself, you have decided that I must be incapable of it too. And so I should I put myself at the mercy of everyone I encounter, like you do.

Why don't you tell me something about my "true nature and beliefs" since you are such an expert? I believe in freedom, why don't you?

While your brownshirt inspired "If you don't like how we do it, shut-up and leave" is very impressive, it lacks teeth. You can't really make me do anything. You aren't armed, and I am. SO I guess if anyone is gonna be giving orders it'll be me.

[Paladin]

109. I Don't Think A Post Like Yours......

....requires much in the way of a response. You've done such a lovely job of exposing yourself, there's no need for too much embellishment. Just for the record, though, I am in fact armed. I own a number of firearms and I know how to use them all. The notion that owning guns makes you an automatic Second Amendment Absolutist is one of many ignorant assumptions that agenda-driven individuals like you make on a regular basis.

I wonder when people like you will get tired of doing my side of this argument such monumental favors. Hopefully not any time soon. By the way: it's still "Democrat" with a capital "D."

[UmSamir]

132. DU is a not a conservative forum ....

It seems a bit elitist for you to dictate the beliefs of ALL Democrats, Liberals and Progressives to the point of implying some posters who don't fit your ideal don't belong here.

[pnutchuck]

6. I can see the point of the founding fathers

but are assault rifles and ak 47's necessary for the general public? I live in Paris, France now and although guns are available for purchase, they're very difficult to get and most everyone is opposed to them. Many who have never been to the US see us as a violent gun culture and are afraid to go to places like LA where Hollywood has depicted it as a literal war zone.

[cattleman22]

13. Think about what the time of the founding fathers

At that time, individuals could own cutting edge military technology. They owned cutting firearms, cutting edge artillary and cutting edge naval vessels. If they had not wanted individuals to own weapons equal to the military, they would have been quite clear.

[YankeyMCC]

23. Nukes

Great, then I should be able to own Tactical Nukes...hmmm lets see where can I go...oh yeah that foundation of our economy...Ebay!!!

[cattleman22]

24. It is almost comical how every debate about guns turns to nukes. n/t

[YankeyMCC]

26. Well

if people want to use silly arguments it's hard to resist. :)

[slackmaster]

34. McFeeb's Law violation a.k.a. Nuclear Straw Man

Automatic loss of debate.

:evilgrin:

[Lefty48197]

80. Yeah, the pro gunners don't support us owning nuclear weapons

just tanks, apache helicopters, shoulder fired rockets, and hand grenades. (well not ALL of them but "SOME" of them)

[slackmaster]

92. Actually I DO support you owning nuclear weapons

If you can pass the federal criminal background check.

If you can come up with the money to buy one, plus the $200 transfer fee for a Destructive Device.

If you can comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations for transporting and storing it.

If you really want one. (And if you don't, please don't drag this silly straw man any farther from its corn field.)

...just tanks, apache helicopters,...

Not regulated items. What's your issue here?

...shoulder fired rockets, and hand grenades.

Like nuclear weapons these are regulated as Destructive Devices. For my attitude toward you owning them please review the first four paragraphs of this reply.

:dunce:

[Paladin]

94. And I Bet You Get All Pissed And Indignant.......

....when somebody refers to you as being a "gun nut."

Support for private ownership of nuclear weapons. Let me just repeat that: Support for private ownership of nuclear weapons. God, this forum gets more entertaining by the hour.......

[slackmaster]

95. No, it doesn't bother me at all Paladin

Support for private ownership of nuclear weapons. Let me just repeat that: Support for private ownership of nuclear weapons. God, this forum gets more entertaining by the hour.......

I sincerely hope you understand my support for privately owned nuclear weapons is a parry to the the disingenuous nuclear straw man argument.

[Paladin]

99. So What's Your Position?

Are you in fact for private ownership of nuclear weapons, or were you kidding? If you were trying to be funny, I'll admit I was fooled; intentional humor is so rare from your side of this argument (unintentional humor from you guys is readily available), and given some of the other things that have appeared in this forum, a little clarification is probably called for.....

[slackmaster]

100. Allow me to make my position perfectly clear, with no humor or sarcasm

I believe the laws, regulations, rules, procedures, and international treaties we have in place right now adequately protect the public from dangers posed by private ownership of domestic nuclear explosive devices.

I also believe those laws, rules, procedures, and international treaties do not infringe on the right of anyone who might come up with a legitimate private use of a nuclear weapon to obtain one.

There is no law against a private individual owning a nuclear bomb, and no such law is needed because the laws, regulations, rules, procedures, and international treaties we have in place now are appropriate controls.

I believe anyone who makes a comment like "So, you people who oppose gun control think I should be able to own a nuke" is being disingenuous. I have yet to meet an individual who sincerely wanted to own a nuclear explosive device.

I believe that someone who wanted to own one just for shits and giggles or any reason other than some kind of industrial or mining purpose, or perhaps related to space exploration or some other as yet nonexistent technology, would probably be diagnosable as insane and therefore ineligible to get one under current law. That's a personal opinion. I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist.

:nuke:

[slackmaster]

101. Sound of crickets chirping, and an Eastern meadowlark call

Reasonable, rational, humorless posts never get much action around here.

[Paladin]

102. Oh, Please

As if the gun rights movement is some kind of fount of sophisticated humor, sarcasm and irony. If people aren't picking up on your funny-guy riffs, there's a good reason why---this is a forum where proposals such as guns for blind people, guns for the mentally retarded, the elimination of all restrictions on silencers, and suggestions on how mass murderers can improve their body counts with cooler firearms, are offered with complete and utter seriousness by your gun-loving brethren and sistren. This is a forum where an unspeakably vile "joke" once appeared, making fun of the law enforcement people who died on 9/11 in your favorite place, Manhattan. And you wonder why there's not sufficient hilarity around here. Gun Hugger, heal thyself......

[slackmaster]

103. All that and still no sign of response to what I actually wrote

Pretty shameful Paladin. What has made you so jaded that you can't return the courtesy and respect I've at least tried to show you over these many months? I'm a real live human being here in San Diego, California. I have emotions and feelings and thoughts that cover a wide range of topics. I'm not just an anonymous contributor to this often pointless discussion.

This is a forum where an unspeakably vile "joke" once appeared, making fun of the law enforcement people who died on 9/11 in your favorite place, Manhattan.

It's also a forum where one of the more "outspoken" gun control advocates, someone who is still an active DUer but conspicuously no longer posts on this forum, made fun of the tragic death of my father and not only has never apologize but publicly REFUSED to apologize to me for his deleted post, and in private email told me to "fuck off" when I extended an olive branch to him.

You gun control nuts seem to think you have a monopoly on righteousness but your hypocrisy is showing more clearly than ever now. Here I've opened up to Paladin and given a sincere, honest, candid answer to his question about my attitude toward privately owned nuclear weapons and what do I get? First silence, then a lame-ass attempt to smear me through guilt by association with some shadowy "gun rights movement".

Let me tell you what "movement" I belong to - It's just me here, a movement of one. You can respond to what I actually say or you can choose to ignore it, but I refuse to accept being pigeon-holed into some category of outsiders of which you have mistaken me for a member.

[Paladin]

104. You Know, Your Wounded Debutante Routine......

...would carry a lot more weight if you didn't accuse me of "hypocrisy" and being "jaded," then moving on to label my response as "shameful" and "lame-ass," and, with a flourish, finishing by placing me in the midst of the "gun control nuts." And you're demanding courtesy and respect? You betcha.

Actually, I do sympathize with your point about not getting a response to what you wrote. Take a look at the "responses" on the thread I started about that "Democratic" anti-abortion group. Talk about some lame-ass stuff.....

[slackmaster]

105. I haven't replied to your anti-abortion group thread

Because I believe it's off-topic. I have read it and you do make a good point, but IMO it doesn't belong in this forum.

Truce?

[Paladin]

106. Truce Is Fine By Me

Your humane instincts do you credit. I'm calling it a night.

[slackmaster]

107. Thanks, I'll try even harder to be civil to you and others from now on

I really am a good person. Even my ex-wife would say so.

[SittingInTheMiddle]

75. Well, that's Hollywood.

Yeah, America has rough neighborhoods in most major cities...but...well...let's put it this way....I've spent multiple weeks, over multiple trips, in either the actual cities or the close suburbs of the following cities, and I have never once heard a gunshot out in public...

LA
San Diego
Orlando
Miami
DC (Suburbs only)
Boston

Now...granted...there are areas in all of those cities where police will get a "shots fired" call at least once a night...but...the people you speak of obviously feel you've gotta duck bullets walking around the streets, and that's just not the case.

Is the murder rate worse here? Sure. But so is the overall CRIME rate. We have something like 675 prisoners per 100,000 people in the country. France has under 90.

[slackmaster]

93. You've never been near the Linda Vista neighborhood in San Diego...

...on the 4th of July or New Year's Eve or Chinese New Year.

Try it some time but either be under something solid or wear a helmet. You will be treated to hundreds or thousands of rounds of tracer ammunition fired into the air from unregistered fully automatic Kalashnikov rifles by some of our recent Indochinese immigrants.

[Massacure]

90. Those who are afraid of guns are those who are bound to be shot by one

[benEzra]

137. Actual AK-47's are HEAVILY restricted in the U.S.

but are assault rifles and ak 47's necessary for the general public? I live in Paris, France now and although guns are available for purchase, they're very difficult to get and most everyone is opposed to them. Many who have never been to the US see us as a violent gun culture and are afraid to go to places like LA where Hollywood has depicted it as a literal war zone.

Actual AK-47's--and all other modern military assault rifles--are HEAVILY restricted in the United States by the by the National Firearms Act of 1934, which has been on the books for more than seventy years. Real AK-47's are automatic weapons, and ALL automatic weapons, burst-mode weapons, firearms over .50 caliber (except shotguns), cut-down long guns, disguised firearms, and sound-suppressed firearms fall under the restrictions of NFA '34. This has nothing to do with our now-expired "assault weapons ban," which banned all firearms holding over 10 rounds with a few inconsequential exceptions.

FAKE AK-47's--civilian rifles that look just like AK's but FUNCTION just like ordinary civilian firearms--are what are available over here. Not actual AK's.

[The Traveler]

2. Historically, tyrants have always

taken steps to disarm the general population.

This is why so many of the weapons of Oriental martial arts are essentially farm implements. Nun chuks, for example, were originally used for seperating rice from the chaff. In Okinawa, the Japanese confiscated all metal items in an effort to prevent the population from forging swords and knives. So they imported Chinese fighting techniques and adapted them to fight Samurai. Today we call that style Karate.

One lesson I obtain from that historical tidbit is that a determined people will find a way to resist and defend themselves. Still, I will keep my weapons.

[Pert_UK]

19. Fallacy of assuming the antecendant.....or something....

Just because tyrants have, historically, disarmed the population it doesn't necessarily follow that:

- only tyrants disarm population
- there aren't good reasons for disarming the population or potential good results to be had
- that if a potential or actual tyrant isn't able to disarm the population his tyranny will be any worse
- an armed population prevents tyranny.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Retired AF Dem]

68. If I remember correctly your country was facing a tyrant

and your people had no arms. American gun owners were kind enough to donate privately owned firearms for your home guard. At the end of the war England couldn't even be bothered to send them back, destroyed them instead.

[Lefty48197]

81. You should read up on the British Navy. They have quite a history you know

And it's a little paternalistic to claim that England, France, Russia, etc owe their very survival to Uncle Sam isn't it?

[Massacure]

91. England and France wouldn't have survived Hitler's invasion

I'm not sure if Russia would have been able to beat Hitler or not. England and France may have survived but they would haven been a hell of a lot more beat up than if the U.S. joined.

[The Traveler]

69. I'll take these on one at a time

- only tyrants disarm population

True ... but if we did a survey, I bet we would find that many more totalitarian regimes conducted civil disarmament programs than non-totalitarian ones. Much depends upon the character of those doing the disarming. I wouldn't trust the current regime, for example, if they suddenly wanted to impose rigorous gun controls.

- there aren't good reasons for disarming the population or potential good results to be had

Potential good results ... possibly ... but given the example of drug prohibition and the subsequent war on drugs I am not thrilled with the prospects. Outlaw something that people want and you create conditions for a black market and the accompanying blood and gore.

Hmmmm ... different peoples, different problems, different causes, different solutions. Americans seem to glorify violence and view violence as a solution. I think all adult Swiss males are still required to maintain a military rifle ... yet the Swiss do not glorify violence nor seize it as a solution so they don't have much of a problem with violent crime.

Take away the guns ... if you can. Still, Americans will find lethal ways to bring violence to one another.

- that if a potential or actual tyrant isn't able to disarm the population his tyranny will be any worse

??? I'm not sure you said what you wanted to here ... I think you were saying an armed population would not necessarily deter or moderate the behavior of a tyrant.

An armed populace does offer something a of deterrent, nothing more. It makes the tyrant's job a little harder, adds a little risk. Ups the ante a bit.

- an armed population prevents tyranny.

No, it doesn't. The population must be dedicated to their freedom. If sufficiently dedicated, they will find a way to fight, to resist. If they aren't so dedicated, then all the M-60's, Stingers and ammo belts on the planet will prove to be insufficient.

[Feathered Fish]

4. Gun rights according to Homer Simpson

Homer: ...But I *have* to have a gun. It's in the Constitution.

Lisa: Dad, the 2nd Amendment is just a remnant from revolutionary days. It has no meaning today.

Homer: You couldn't be more wrong Lisa. If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants and start shoving you around. Do you want that? {pokes Lisa} Huh? {shoves her} Do ya!?

[sariku]

5. I think...

That much of it has to do with the situation between the colonies and GB at the time this was all written. The initial concept was, methinks, to ensure that we could protect ourselves from the government. So it may be considered a human right instead of a right allowed by law because the intention was to protect us from the government.

Now, some people say that the National Guard is what was intended. I'm not sure what to think of that, because I see the N.G. being controlled by the government.

Of course, I'm thinking none of this really washes. Honestly, how many of us think that having our own guns will allow us to protect ourselves from our government?

I think that it was a right in that I do believe our founding fathers intended there to be gun ownership. However, I doubt they could have envisioned what the average citizen would be up against as far as the abilities of the government in this day and age. I doubt the rest of the world thinks it is a right, but I also don't think their opinion matters in every single thing that we do.

I think there are a couple of layers to the issue of gun rights. There is the right to have guns, then there is the issue of, to what extent do these rights apply? Any type of gun? What about missiles?

Obviously, the line must be drawn somewhere, but where? I think that the issue of how violent we are as a society plays into the issue of guns. We don't seem to be very interested in examining why we are so violent. The thought of an armed society is not frightening in and of itself. The thought of an armed society with a high rate of violence IS frightening.

[benevolent dictator]

10. a wee tangent

"Honestly, how many of us think that having our own guns will allow us to protect ourselves from our government?"

Exactly, I'm thinking the gun thing may have been valid back then, but now it is moot. Having the right to own guns in order to defend ourselves from the government may have been okay back when the most distructive weapons were guns, but now if we were really at war with the government, they could just drop a bomb from thousands of miles in the air, or spread poison gas across an entire state, and then what good would our guns do?

No, I'm not arguing we should have the right to mustard gas and missiles in order to protect ourselves from the government, I just don't think that saying we need guns to protect ourselves from the government is a very convincing argument.

As for why it's a "right" instead of "a privilage allowed by law," I don't know. Personally I think it should be a privilage.

[cattleman22]

15. So you advocate for an amendment to repeal the 2nd? n/t

[pnutchuck]

16. We should be looking at the root of violence in this country

not the method used for destruction. We have an ever growing class of poverty, burgeoning prisons, and a morally divided country. There is such a hatred building between "us" and "them" that having weapons is only a recipe for civil war. I think we should keep in mind that some of the most dramatic structural changes against governments in modern times have come through peaceful protests, as with Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Rhabbin to name a few.

[sariku]

17. On the other hand...

I think that the argument that the founding fathers couldnt' have envisioned the situation is a double edged sword. I doubt they could have envisions the drive to allow gays equal rights, either - but does that mean they shouldn't? Many on the right would use this argument.

Then again, it's almost an apples and oranges comparison, because societal issues such as rights are very much a product of the time in which you live in.

Many, I hate issues when I can come up with opposing arguments!

[Columbia]

42. Actually, they had WMD back then

Smallpox (from infected blankets) was used as a genocidal weapon against the indigenous population of North America. Since it was a disease never before seen on the continent, there was almost no immunity to it in the local population and the result was decimating.

Also, consider that a nation of just 25 million (albeit with some outside help probably) and maybe 15,000 insurgents among them have successfully held at bay a sophisticated army of 140,000. After seeing this, you still think that a nation with estimates of 80,000,000 gun-owners won't be able to resist the same army?

[solinvictus]

45. Exactly!

That's why I hate to hear "guns won't do any good because the government has _______ <-- insert weapons system here". It's absurd in light of the chaos in Iraq caused by a few thousand fighters with small arms and improvised explosives. Iraq, a wide open desert, is ungovernable. What would happen here, with our large cities, vast forests, and remote mountains and rivers?

[Krinkov]

158. dont underestimate an armed populace vs a govt!

so do you think military action against the populace during an uprising would take the form of poison gas and missiles?
In that situation an american has to order that action and another has to deploy those weapons.. against america. i dont think a split within the military when theyre asked to level new york and gas LA is out of the question... What happens to the brass and soldiers from LA and NY when their hometowns get attacked?

and that aside, wars have been fought and won against superpowers with very little or no material support (eritrean liberation from ethiopia, anyone?)

My point is i dont think a civil war would remain so logistically one sided for long..

I think an armed populace, even with 'just guns' (don't forget improvised explosives) is capable of making life very difficult for an organized oppressor (such as the government) that pushes them to the point of rebellion (look at the iraq insurgency, and history's many other guerrilla conflicts)
A populace with any ability to harm their potential oppressors in itself is a deterrent to tyranny. So what if they can be killed en masse with the push of a button-- you cant kill them all, and alot of civilians will die as well. Some of those left over will want to join the fight, like in the vietnam, the middle east today, etc etc..
Only solution would be to kill them all, and then who would the government have left to rule?
Even in this day and age an armed populace is the final power check.

[YankeyMCC]

25. National Guard

The national guard is the descendant of what the founding fathers envisioned, but you're right to be suspicious of what it has become now, essentially a reserve of the standing army.

What needs to happen is a restructuring of the national guard to bring it back to what it really should be, a state and local militia force. That would make it a very effective means of providing "homeland" security.

[Bullseye10]

70. The government is run by people that bleed

"Of course, I'm thinking none of this really washes. Honestly, how many of us think that having our own guns will allow us to protect ourselves from our government?"

How many deputies, local yokels, etc. are going to be willing to enforce some tyrannical law or impose some ridiculous, outrageous, restrictions on people that are capable and may be willing to shoot their sorry asses full of holes?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Because a society where only cops and criminals have guns is bad.

Personally, I don't trust either. I may never own a gun, but I want someone to think twice about it.

[Pert_UK]

22. Why?

Criminals having guns is, by definition, bad - people who deliberately go against society's accepted wills and laws should not be allowed to do so armed.

Cops having guns is a necessary evil (although in many countries the arming of police is at a very minimal level) to combat the criminals with guns. Cops are supposed to be trained specialists who society has entrusted to protect itself through the proper use and application of specialist tools required to do so.

If you're scared of armed cops, I'd say that it's the system that needs amending, rather than the populace that needs arming.

"I don't trust the people that the authorities trust to uphold the law, therefore I (and every other untrained citizen) should be armed to defend ourselves against them." Doesn't sound right to me....

Why is it better to have a largely untrained and unregulated armed citizenry?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. Nothing you said is wrong, and yet...

Everything you said is misguided. Should criminals be tolerated to have guns? Absolutely not. Should cops always be trusted to uphold the law and not abuse their power? Absolutely.

Do those things happen in reality? Not on this planet. Criminals are going to get guns if they want to. It's a fact of life. Unless you shut down all production of firearms, criminals will have guns. Similarly, there will always be cops that abuse the power they have. Whenever you're in a self-selected system where people with inferiority complexes decide the best way for them to feel superior is to become a cop, there are going to be those who are unworthy of being trusted.

What I'm not saying is that people SHOULD have guns, especially if they're not trained to handle them. Further, they should be regulated heavily. However, if NO ONE is allowed to have guns legally, it makes life very easy pickings for cops and criminals who thrive on abuse of power. They don't have to think twice that their life could be in danger if they screw with the wrong person if no one is allowed to have a gun. Simply having the allowance in place is at very least a small deterrent.

[el_gato]

9. because government is by the consent of the people

I guess you think everything thing you do in life is "allowed" by the government but that is an inverted view of the way it is supposed to be.
Either the government exists for the benefit of the people or you are simply a slave. Sadly, too many people live with the slave mentality.

[Pert_UK]

28. Please let me know what that has to do with my question.....

As a starting point, I'd have to point out that the vast majority of countries are quite happy for the government to operate tight regulation over firearms ownership. Society wouldn't work without rules and enforcement. Explain to me why gun ownership is none of the goverment's business?

[el_gato]

37. "vast majority of countries are quite happy" blah blah blah

Sadly the world is dominated by the people who claim authority over others by the simple reason that the use of force makes them able to do so. I don't see too many people who are on the recieving end of abusive authority being "quite happy" about being subjected to this abuse.
In fact, the level of happiness in this world is very low so your assertion is spurious at best. It is the job of the media to make people fearful of their fellow citizens so as to embrace the "protectors" , i.e. government forces. Tight knit communities such
as indigenous peoples in south america see right through the charade
but in communities where there is total media saturation you see this
fear and mistrust of each other.

We live in a world where might makes right.

You can't name one single government on this planet that is not corrupt.
That includes the one you are living under.

[Pert_UK]

129. Cluck cluck, gibber gibber, my old man's a mushroom...

Those words you use, they all make sense individually but when taken together are very puzzling indeed, as well as being unrelated to the original question....

"Sadly the world is dominated by the people who claim authority over others by the simple reason that the use of force makes them able to do so."

And? At best, this implies that arming the repressed might be a temporary measure employed to redress the balance - surely a totally unarmed, truly democratic society would be a more peaceful and safer society than one where equality or peace in maintained through the threat / counter-threat of violence? Was the world safer and more pleasant to live in under the Mutually Assured Destruction philosophy of the Cold War, or is it better now that various sides aren't openly threatening each other?

"I don't see too many people who are on the recieving end of abusive authority being "quite happy" about being subjected to this abuse." Neither do I......so what? For example, the vast majority of people in the UK are quite happy to live in a society where guns aren't generally allowed, but we're not on the receiving end of abusive authority. The same could be said for most other Western societies...

In fact, I'll stop here......I can't be bothered continuing with somebody who'll only ignore what I'm saying. My final point will be that as the world in general and the Western democratic world specifcally have progressed and developed, one element that has been common to the vast majority of those countries has been the movement away from firearms and weapons as desirable objects for private ownership.

[cattleman22]

12. Why gun ownership is a right

I think you are looking at rights in the wrong manner. In my opinion, every individual has the right to do anything up to the point of causing harm to an innocent individual. The possession and ownerhsip of guns does not by itself cause harm.


1. Self defense: How can a person have a right to self defense if they are not allowed to defend them selves. It is like saying you have a right to self defense as long as you do not hurt anyone in the process of defending yourself. In my opinion, this was so self evident, that the founders of the country did not even bother to put it in the Bill of rights as a reason.


2. Hunting: At the time the Bill of rights was written, the use of guns for hunting was again so self evident that I bet none of the founders could have imagined the need to put it in as a reason.


3. Overthrow a tyrranical government: To me this is the most important reason that people should have the right to owns guns. This is exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written and what the founders wrote about in other documents. The American Revolution would not have been succesful without privatte ownership of guns. Because of that, the founders wanted to ensure that when the US government inevitably becomes too tyrranical, that the people will be able to overthrow it.

[YankeyMCC]

53. Incorrect assumptions

See my posts in response to MrUnderhill

The 2nd amendment isn't about an individual right to bare arms.

Point 1: The "right" to self defense is contained in the right to life as stated in the Dec of Ind. Certainly the right to remain alive is more self evident than the right to self defense yet they put that down in explicit writing.

People are allowed to own guns. There's no way a law or amendment to prohibit guns would pass. I know I certainly don't support banning guns. Gun ownership is part of a citizen responsibility to participate in government not for individual self protection or hunting but to ensure the government is a government of the people by the people. Self defense has little to do with it, unless you count defensing your country as self defense.

Point 2: Again the right to remain alive is even more self evident an it was included. There are many things that people do to make a living and many still do rely heavily on hunting to provide for their families in this country. The founders knew these "self evident" means of every day life would change and evolve they had no objective to enshrine anything that was going on in their particular moment in history. What they were laying out is how to maintain a republican form of government.

Point 3: The right has nothing to do with overthrow of the government. See my earlier posts. There is no right to indivdual gun ownership, the right is to ensure republican government, gun ownership is a responsibility and the patriotic thing to do is be and encourage responsible gun ownership. And that certainly isn't unrestrained ubiquitous weapon distribution with no legal responsibilities or consequences for failure to adhere to the aspects of gun ownership that make you a responsibile gun owner.

[Columbia]

54. In regards to Point 3

Read Federalist 46

Point 2 - Replace "maintain" with "limit" in your last sentence.

Point 1 - Just because you believe one thing has a legitimate use for a specific purpose does not mean that that purpose is the ONLY purpose of that thing. See 9th and 10th Amendments.

[YankeyMCC]

57. The Federalists

Where of course written in support of the Federalist (the ancestor of today's Republican party) agenda which at it's core did not trust the general population to be able to govern themselves. Of course that line of thinking would also want to put the word "limit" in place of "maintaine". They would want to "limit" the power of the people. Where as when I say "maintain" I mean ensure the continuation of a republican government, in otherwords rule by the people.

[Columbia]

59. What???

The Federalist Party died out long before the modern Republican party came about. The Anti-Federalists were actually the first Republicans (but later became the Democratic Republicans and now simply Democrats).

The Federalist Party simply wanted ratification of a new Constitution. The Bill of Rights was written as a compromise for the Antifederalists to ensure that the new government was limited and not the people were to be limited. James Madison, author of Federalist 46, was eventually persuaded to support the Bill of Rights as well.

Both the Federalists and the Antifederalists main concern was how to limit a federal government and ensure rights are protected. Where they differed was HOW best to accomplish that end. Federalists were afraid that listing certain rights would allow others to be easily trampled. The Antifederalists believed that without any list at all, any rights would be considered free game.

In the end, they came to view the BOR as the best compromise (including the 9th and 10th amendment to reserve rights not listed to the people and power to the states).

Edit: Did you even read Fed 46???

[YankeyMCC]

61. Excuse me but

I said the Federalists were the ancestors of not the current Republican party.

The Federalists evolved into the Whigs, the anti-slavery/frustrated with their own party's lack of will to organize Whigs joined and formed the organizational core of the Republican party formed by Lincoln et al, that has become what it is today.

I didn't say the Federalists party didn't want ratification of the Constituion, that's exactly what they wanted. They wanted a strong central government, they were primarily made up of the industrial/financial interests of the nation and saw that it required a strong central Federal system to protect those interests.

I didn't say the BIll of Rights was intended to limit anyone. Yes the antiFederalists wanted to limit the government they saw the Federalist as supporting and that contributed to the formation of the "Bill of Rights". What I said was that a Federalist would want to limit the power of the people. And this also supports my earlier assertion that the "BIll of Rights" is not really a list of individual rights but as a means of protecting the single right to republican government. They were trying to ensure we had a republican form of government, and the delegation of power to the states was a way of ensuring that we would have republican government at the state level.

Federalists did not want to limit government, they wanted strong central government, what they wanted to limit was democracy. The anti-Federalists wanted to limit the central government.

[Columbia]

64. No way

The Federalist Party died long before the Whig Party ever came into existence. They have nothing to do with one another. They are not ancestors of, but a completely separate line from the Republican Party.

As for the rest, it's obvious you are dead-set in your belief and my requests for you to read certain documents will not be heeded so we'll just have to leave it there.

Edit: BTW, the BOR was written by Madison, a FEDERALIST.

[YankeyMCC]

65. Nice

So down to the "you'll never understand" argument.

People are complex beings, Madison's politcial mentor was Jefferson who may not fit nicely into the AntiFederalist mold but he certainly was no Federalist. He surely took to thought about the letters and advice Jefferson was sending him in letters and so was open to the ideas in the Bill of Rights. And Madison put into words what the framers wanted, he wasn't sitting alone in a room thinking this all up by himself. There was a compromise, an agreement to create a Bill of Rights and he wrote it. His affiliation has nothing to do with it.


And there's no well defined line in the death of an idea like the old Federalism. We're talking about real people and "political partys" that were barely parties, this was way before such things were so firmly placed into the American political structure. The political descendants of Federalists, The whigs which in itself was barely a coherent party in fact they prided themselves on lack of organization, were clearly influenced and connected if not by family and business relationships then by polical thought.

[Columbia]

66. No

I'm down to the "we'll never agree so I'm dropping it" argument.

[Liberal Classic]

110. Madison changed his mind

It's true that James Madison was originally in the Federalist camp. However, he changed his mind and joined Jefferson as an anti-federalist. He was so ashamed of the arguments he made in the constitutional convention that he burned his notes. Most of what we know about the constitutional convention come from Madison's notes that didn't make it into the fireplace.

[GOPFighter]

14. Actually the 2nd Amend says "arms" not guns

The amendment specifically says arms, not firearms, not guns. Arms are defined on dictionary.com as "A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms." Of course ICBMs, nuclear weapons, and other weapons capable of creating mass distruction didn't exist at the time the Second Amendment, nor were high-powered, highly accurate firearms.

This is a case where technology has changed to such an extent that it would be crazy, IMO, not to expect some limits to be placed on the ownership of arms. If not, then we should go back to the system of state militias and citizen soldiers.

[DoNotRefill]

82. Umm....

"This is a case where technology has changed to such an extent that it would be crazy, IMO, not to expect some limits to be placed on the ownership of arms."

Try reading that with the First Amendment in place of the Second Amendment, and see if you'd agree with it.

[Cooper]

147. actually, "arms"

refers to weapons that are designed to be used with your hands, carried on your person. artillery, nukes, bio/chem, all that is considered ordnance. the FFs were very pro-gun, but not keen on the idea of the average citizen owning canon. that way, the goverment couldn't oppress the populace, and one crazy guy couldn't level an entire block.

[Phx_Dem]

18. not exactly what you were looking for...

the US supreme court has never ruled on the meaning of the second amendment, so it's been left up to the states to decide about gun ownership (10th amendment).

[goju]

20. Same reason freedom of speech is a right.

Its not circular logic to say, because its in the BoR. That is exactly why, and how, it is a right.

But remember, those rights are not provided by the BoR, they are guaranteed by it. Those rights are god given, the constitution is just their to guarantee they wont be compromised by the government.

Edit, the reason most of the rest of the world doesnt think its a right? I dont know if I agree with that necessarily but lets assume its true at least of the western world, europe for instance.

I think they have never really had the type of perspective changing revolution like we had in the US. Our revolution was in response to the tyranny of the church and monarchy. The framers wanted to ensure that those god given rights could never be compromised ever again, as they had been and continue to be, in europe. I think it largely comes down to what your experiences are, and where you are raised that determines how feircley you protect those inalienable rights.

[Pert_UK]

41. Of course it's circular...

Why is it a right? - because it's in the BoR.
Why does does being in the BoR make it a right? - because the BoR lists rights.
How do you know the BoR lists rights? - because it says it does.

If I were being kind, I'd let you continue...

Why is the BoR an infallible list of genuine rights? - because all it does is list the rights God gave us.
How do you know that it lists the rights God gave us? - because it says so in the BoR.

It couldn't BE much more circular.

Aside from that, you're relying on:

- the existence of God
- the correct interpretation and recording of God's will by a group of men

Neither of these are reasonable things to assume as a basis on which to base an argument, because you end up saying, "God exists and some guys infallibly interpreted his will to mean that it's a right, and that's why it's a right". You are, effectively, asking the person who disagrees with you to assume he agrees with you in order to prove what you want him to agree with.

In the second (edited addition) to your post, you begin to make a very good point about why, in practice, gun ownership became a right, but then you again assume that it's a "god given" right or an "inalienable right" - that's EXACTLY what I'm asking you to prove.

I'm not saying "Just because the 2nd amendment says it's a right it doesn't mean it is one" (although I suppose I am saying that too).

Your answer seems to be, "It's not a right just because it's in the 2nd amendment, it's a right because it's a right. The 2nd amendment just lists rights."

[goju]

50. Its not that complicated

I think it comes down to how you define a right. Are they objective and verifiable or are they subjective and based on the will of the people? Clearly the framers of the constitution felt that god meant for us to have certain inalienable rights and thus guaranteed the protection of those rights. Clearly you can deny their knowlegde of god's intentions, and clearly you can deny their authority in guaranteeing those rights, simply because they wrote it down. But you cant deny that every other right is subject to the same scrutiny. The question is, why are you asking this question?

Our government is based on the rule of law, which is based on the constitution, which is based on the framers beliefs of the role of god and government in the governance of the people. They saw the right to keep and bear arms as god given, and protected that right from being compromised by government in the bill of rights.

You can choose to ignore their understanding of god given rights, and you can choose to ignore the bill of rights as authoritative, but the same scrutiny can be applied to ANY right. Human rights, free speech, personal property, religion, etc. They are all based not in an objective understanding or knowledge of god or nature, but in the subjective understanding of those things, and the framers belief that if not protected, some or all of those rights could be threatened, as they have been in other parts of the world.

I think you are looking for objectivity where none exists.

[T Town Jake]

31. Since it's not a "right" in the UK...

...why are you worried about it? :shrug:

[Pert_UK]

43. Because justice, rights and firearms fascinate me.....

and because I've been discussing them here for years and have never yet had anyone give me a sensible answer as to why it actually is a right, which doesn't just involve saying, "Because someone said it is".

There seems to be a lot of passionate advocates of the RKBA on here, and it interests me that people can have such a passionate belief without being able to explain why,.

Many apologies if somebody asking questions instead of just accepting something worries you...

[slackmaster]

33. I see it as a natural right and here are some of my reasons

1. One of the defining traits of our species is making and using tools. Firearms are not very complex in principle. An individual could build a crude working firearm from materials found in nature; the episode of Star Trek in which Captain Kirk creates a cannon and defeats the Gorn captain isn't very far-fetched. However we are also social beings who combine efforts into enterprises that create manufactured goods far exceeding the quality of what is practical for an individual to make alone. The history of manufacturing is intertwined with the history of weapons.

2. Self-defense is a natural right of all living beings.

3. All rights exist except those that have been proscribed by a legitimate socially determined power, such as a duly chosen government. Rights are not created by government, they can only be curtailed. The right to keep and bear arms is a subset of the natural right to own, say, or do anything that hasn't been outlawed. You live in a country where it's illegal to leave your shotgun on your living room floor overnight. I don't face that particular restriction.

As a follow up, if you believe it is a "right", why do you think that the vast majority of the rest of the world doesn't think it is?

Most of the rest of the world consists of ignorant inbred savages living below my standard of living who don't even understand the language I speak, and I really don't care what they think. ;)

[Pert_UK]

44. Ahem...

"Most of the rest of the world consists of ignorant inbred savages living below my standard of living who don't even understand the language I speak, and I really don't care what they think. "

So you've been to Wales then?

:evilgrin:

Good, intelligent responses, Slacky......will try to reply when I have time tonight.

P.

[mosin]

60. Good job slackmaster

I read all the way through the thread hoping someone would have made this argument. Self-preservation or self-defense is the primary right of all living beings. In the case of human beings, this requires the use of the tools necessary to self-preservation. This takes the form both of collective self-preservation (i.e., the Militia) and of individual self-preservation.

This is why I almost always refer to the right as the "right to keep and bear arms for defense and security," using language from the Ohio state constitution.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

136. That's a good argument, I think,

but I think that the corrolary to it is that if American law were to be changed by due democratic process to forbid the owning of guns, then it would cease to be a right. So it's not an *inalienable* right (and nor is anything else, come to that).

[jody]

138. But under a republican form of government, the democratic process

cannot take away a right as you suggest, i.e. "to forbid the owning of guns." That is recognized by a few states that say e.g. "Construction of Declaration of Rights. That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate." (Alabama Constitution).

I understand the thrust of your statement but if the democratic process can take away every inalienable right, then slavery can be legalized. Just because a government bans an inalienable right does not make it inalienable. That's why our the history of Constitution makes clear that a basic reason for government is to protect inalienable rights.

In the end, the minority depend upon the majority to protect the inalienable rights of all. That's a moral issue akin to "I am my brothers keeper".

[Donald Ian Rankin]

140. I see where you're coming from,

but isn't one of the principles of democratic (or republican? or not?) government that no government can bind it's successor.

As far as I understand, your position is that certain rights are inherently immutable, and that even if a society chooses not to recognise them they are still rights.

It's not an absurd position, but I think it has two problems. The first is that how does one determine what rights those are? You say that the right to own guns is one, but I think it's perfectly reasonable for a society to forbid the owning of them, or many ohter things, by its members. We both think that not being enslaved is one, but historically many other people would disagree. Right and wrong are - just - simple enough concepts to propose absolute definitions for them, but I think that trying to enumerate specific inalienable rights of man is doomed to failure.

The second, more major, problem, is that you're setting something else above the will of the people. I don't want to live in a society where 51% of the populace can vote to have the other 49% put to death, but I want even less to live in one where there are laws that cannot be changed even if a sufficient majority wish it. I think it's a good idea to have a constitution requiring more than a 50% majority to ammend, and similar safeguards, but in the end, any law *must* be repealable, I think.

[jody]

141. The contrast is a democracy vs a republic. The founders felt so strongly

about inalienable or natural rights that they included them in state constitutions that preceded our Constitution, e.g. Pennsylvania and Vermont. "The Rights of the Colonists" published in 1772 captured the feelings at the time as expressed later in the Declaration of Independence. See my post #139 below for a link to the report.

[jody]

139. "The Rights of the Colonists" captures the feeling about rights in 1772

"The Rights of the Colonists, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772"
QUOTE
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.

When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.

Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.

All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity.

As neither reason requires nor religion permits the contrary, every man living in or out of a state of civil society has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.
UNQUOTE

[shleonny]

156. natural rights are an illusion

born of deterministic philosophy's

[solinvictus]

39. Answers..

"Why isn't it a privilege allowed by law, rather than a human right?"

I believe it's been settled in America at the local level. Gun control is essentially a 10th Amendment issue, meaning it is ultimately decided on a state level. With the exception of Federal regulations on importation, destructive devices, Class 3 weapons, etc., most policy is decided in state courts and legislatures. For example, cities such as New York, Chicago, and Washington DC and the state of California have passed highly restrictive local laws that would be alien to states such as Arizona, Georgia, or Minnesota. What is legal to purchase inside a Wal Mart in one state can be absolutely forbidden in these local jurisdictions. To my knowledge, Federal law regulates the type of weapons sold, the legality of transferring ownership, and some mandatory sentencing guidelines for using firearms in a crime.

"As a follow up, if you believe it is a "right", why do you think that the vast majority of the rest of the world doesn't think it is?"

It's a matter of culture and tradition. Switzerland, a nation that was largely composed of German, French, and Italian refugees, has a strong culture of individual freedom that includes firearms ownership. Members of the national militia are required to maintain both small arms and even some crew serviced weapons at their homes. Shooting sports are still a national pastime. In this case, I believe that as a small nation who, at one point, was surrounded by hostile neighbors, they saw the importance of an armed and ready populace to resist potential invaders. In 1941, Japanese Admiral Yamimoto dismissed the feasibility of an invasion of the continental US due to the fact that "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". He recognized the reality of civilian firearms ownership in the US and the fact that, at the time, mass numbers of civilians on the west coast were mobilizing citizens' groups as a reaction. At one point before US involvement in WW2, a domestic arms shortage led American charity organizations to collect civilian small arms and binoculars for the UK in anticipation of a German invasion. I believe in the 1920's, the UK passed a national gun control act that limited ownership of pistols and rifles, which in turn haunted them at the onset of WW2.
Regarding the rest of the world, I believe that it seems to involve several factors. When one speaks of the developing world, in most cases the state has a monopoly on weapons, often to disastrous ends. Our southern neighbor, Mexico, has highly restrictive firearms laws coupled with an army and police force that is rampant with corruption. In 1994, the state of Chiapas rose in an armed rebellion that forced the Mexican government to negotiate and address some of their greivances. Would this have happened without the possession and use of small arms? I doubt it. http://www.ezln.org/archivo/fzln/timeline.html
History has proven and still reflects that an absolute state monopoly on force can be disatrous. Some cases in point are the Armenians and Kurds in Turkey, Christians inside of Sudan and Nigeria, and the various ethnic conflicts across the globe.

"I can see how self-defense could be considered a right, but the means to that end (i.e. a specific type of weapon) can't possibly be a right in itself, can it?"
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Ghandi
I can not offer a better summation of self-defense as a human right. To deprive one of the means of effective self-defense is to strip them of their physical safety and make them subject to the whims of criminals and conquerors. Would another right, such as freedom of the press, be useful if the state allowed no one to own the means to publish news and opinions? Would the freedom to worship hold the same meaning if an edict forbade the building of churches or temples? Words on paper offer little meaning or protection without the tangible ability to exercise the right.

[Jack_DeLeon]

46. Its the natural extension of the right to self defense.

As a follow up, if you believe it is a "right", why do you think that the vast majority of the rest of the world doesn't think it is?

I think you question is flawed. I dont think the vast majority of the rest of the world is against gun ownership. I do however think the majority of thier governments are against it.

[alwynsw]

47. This thread is yet another example

of the mindset of a subject, not a citizen.

Thankfully, I live in a country that has never been the property of a monarch. The real estate we occupy once was controlled by a monarch, but the nation itself has had a republican form of government since it's inception. I see that as a prime factor in the argument of rights.

We have no national memory of absolute power placed in the hands of a single person. We have never been beholden to the whim any single person for our rights and privelidges.

As we regularly see, the residents of nations who have spent centuries under the thunb of monarchies or other tightly controlled government bodies have yet to realize the value of the freedoms we often take for granted.

Aa fine example of this in minature is a pet dog. Crate train it early in life and the crate will be its "safe space" for the rest of its life. It gets used to the crate and even though it greatly restricts its freedom, the dog will return to it several times a day. Is there a national subliminal wish to return to a nonthinking way of life in other parts of the world?

[Left in IL]

55. It's based in the right to life

Clearly if we have the right to life, we have the right to defend that life.

"The defense of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law." - James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, 1896


The police are there to help, but they are not RESPONSIBLE for your safety. Several court cases have made that clear.

If you look at the FBI statistics, you will find that very few crimes are prevented by police (which makes sense, very few crimes occur in front of them)

The statistics also show that very few crimes are actually solved. The crime that is solved the most is murder, and it has only a 50% closure rate.

So why a gun and not just a knife?

A gun is the most effective tool avaliable for self defense. This is why police carry them.

A gun allows a weak person to defend themselves against a strong person.

A gun lets you defend yourself against a criminal with a gun. (first rule of a gun fight is to have a gun)

Criminals will always have guns. Even if they all magically disappeared, a revolver could be made in a few hours in any of tens of thousands of machine shops across the country.

So to recap, if you have the right to life, you must have an effective method to excerise that right.

To disallow guns would be like having a free press, and then having a $100 tax to buy a newspaper. The right is useless if it coan not be excerised.

[dljordan]

56. Read

Read the Federalist papers, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

[YankeyMCC]

58. Remember

The Federalists were afraid of "modacracy" and wanted to limit the authority of the general population.

[dljordan]

62. Mobocracy

If you read about the ancient Greek experiment with Democracy I'd be afraid of it too. That's why we have a Constitutional Republic.

[YankeyMCC]

63. Not exactly

What we have is a representative republic. A reduction in the "purity" of the republic and it was an attempt to make such a large Federation as close to a democratic republic as possible.

[aikoaiko]

67. So Pert, what do you think?

Did anyone answer your question with an adequate answer?

[w4rma]

71. The 2nd is there to help Americans to rebel against their government again

And to any FBI folks, I'm NOT NOT NOT NOT, in any way, endorsing or supporting a violent rebelion against this government, tyrannical as they may be.

I think that because you have to be so careful in explaining this, is the primary reason why you never hear this reason. I mean it's kinda hard to really defend the 2nd Amendment in this way when you are worried that someone might misinterpet what you say as a message to take arms against our government.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."
THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787.—The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1065.html

I seriously doubt that Britain has a right that is similiar to this one, because this right was created by our nation's founding fathers who were in the process of rebeling against the tyranny of then Britain. However Britain was not created through a revolution but has instead peacefully evolved into the democracy of today from their former rulership of kings.

[jody]

72. The founders of our country in the egalitarian spirit of the times

sought to protect man’s natural right to defend self and property by including appropriate statements in state constitutions when they were independent and completely sovereign and before they signed our Constitution. The authors of our Constitution recognized that and in “The Rights of the Colonists”, 20 Nov. 1772, Samuel Adams discussed the “Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men” and wrote:
QUOTE
In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.
UNQUOTE

Pennsylvanians protected that natural right in their constitution, (Pa Constitution, 28 Sept. 1776),
QUOTE
I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,"
UNQUOTE

Vermont used almost identical text in 1777.

A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was stated by its citizens on June 15, 1780.
QUOTE
Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
UNQUOTE

SCOTUS dealt with the issue of natural rights in Luther v. Borden 48 U.S. 1 (1849)
QUOTE
A constitution, being the deliberate expression of the sovereign will of the people, takes effect from the time that will is unequivocally expressed, in the manner provided in and by the instrument itself.
AND
There is no such thing as a natural right to vote. There are three classes of rights: natural, such as those recognized in the Declaration of Independence; civil, such as the rights of property; and political rights. Society has nothing to do with natural rights except to protect them. Civil rights belong equally to all. Every one has the right to acquire property, and even in infants the laws of all governments preserve this. But political rights are matters of practical utility. A right to vote comes under this class. If it was a natural right, it would appertain to every human being, females and minors. Even the Dorr men excluded all under twenty-one, and those who <48 U.S. 1, 29> had not resided within the State during a year. But if the State has the power to affix any limit at all to the enjoyment of this right, then the State must be the sole judge of the extent of such restriction. It can confine the right of voting to freeholders, as well as adults or residents for a year. The boasted power of majorities can only show itself under the law, and not against the law, in any government of laws. It can only act upon days and in places appointed by law
UNQUOTE

As to the right to own guns, it is accepted that a law-abiding citizen is entitled to possess appropriate means to defend themselves. Law enforcement personnel do not have a natural right to carry arms, that right is granted by government and in the U.S. those personnel acknowledge that handguns and long guns are the most effective and efficient tools to use to defend themselves.

It would seem to follow that citizens who have a natural right to defend self and property would also use the same tools to defend themselves. That appears to be the intent when sovereign states protected RKBA in their constitituons beginning with Pennsylvania in 1776, "XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;" (Pa Constitution, 28 Sept. 1776)

Today 28 states recognize an individual`s "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" (RKBA) for defense of self and state: AL, AR, CO, CT, DE, FL, IN, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, ND, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV, WI, WY

Five states recognize an individual's RKBA for the "common defense": AR, KS, MA, OH, TN.

Eleven states say RKBA shall not be infringed": AK, GA, HI, ID, IL, LA, ME, NC, RI, SC, VA.

Since governments in the U.S. are not obligated to protect an individual, do you or any other reader of this thread have a suggestion on alternative tools that are both effective and efficient that citizens could use to exercise their natural right to defend self and property?

[Left in IL]

77. The government has powers not rights

If I may be so bold, I would like to point out that the government has powers not rights.

You said,

"Law enforcement personnel do not have a natural right to carry arms, that right is granted by government and in the U.S. those personnel acknowledge that handguns and long guns are the most effective and efficient tools to use to defend themselves."

Governments do not grant rights, rights are inherent. If they were granted by the government, they could be taken away by the government.

This distinction was clear to the Founding Fathers,when they said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

[jody]

78. Please read carefully

the obiter dicta material I quoted from Luther v. Borden (48 U.S. 1), "There are three classes of rights: natural, such as those recognized in the Declaration of Independence; civil, such as the rights of property; and political rights."

I believe it is correct to say that government gives or grants law enforcement officers the right to defend them self and that right is not a "natural right". Law enforcement officers know that firearms are the most effective, efficient tools to use for self-defense.

Citizens have a "natural right" to defend them self and they know, like law enforcement officers, that firearms are the most effective, efficient tools available to do that job.

[LinuxUser]

73. Rights are ultimately a matter of opinion

What is and is not a right isn't something that can be proved by science. It may be revealed by God, but that's really no more than saying it's an opinion that someone has that he thinks came to him from God, and that's also just an opinion.

Rights often are derived from belief systems. Someone might say that the right to self-defense is a "natural" right because all animals do need to defend themselves, and the right to own firearms derives from this natural right. Others (like me) say that God has given us the gift of life and ordered us to defend it. In my opinion, defending our lives is a duty, and therefore gun ownership is not just a right, but is in fact a duty.

You say you want some better reasons than "because people decided it was a right". Unfortunately that's the best you're going to do. Why do you have a right to free speech? Because some people decided it was a right. Why do you have a right to own a gun? Same reason: some people decided that you do.

You can make all kinds of complicated arguments about why you have the right to free speech but in the end, you have it because some other people fought and died for you to have it. People decide they have certain rights, and then take them, without permission. Your right to free speech and your right to own a gun preceed the Bill of Rights or the US government, and will continue to exist after the Bill of Rights and the US government are gone. They are inalienable from you... because you believe that that is so. That's all.

A lot of it comes down to people liking certain ideas and so they stick around. Why does a week have seven days? Just because enough people have said that it does for a long enough period of time that we have accepted it. It's not right or wrong, it's just been around for a long time. If enough people decided that a week has six days, and we all agreed on that, then eventually, a week would have six days and we would all think "it couldn't be any ohter way, this is the correct length of a week", but of course, that's just as arbitrary as any other number. I think that finally our "rights" are the same way.

If you really want to read a lot of philosophical and legal arguments about it, I'm sure you can find them.

Oh, and check this site: http://www.a-human-right.com

[Inland]

133. Penultimately a matter of opinion. Ultimately a matter of a vote.

After the opinions are voiced, debated and put to the legislature.

The gun rights lobby says that we don't get a debate or a vote in the legislature, because the constitution already prohibits it, that is, the vote was done in 1789 for pretty much all time, in a practical sense. Me, I say gun rights are still live issues for live legislators.

[jody]

146. Penultimately means “next to last”. That seems illogical in

the context of your argument. :shrug:

[forgethell]

74. Because there's

never a policeman there when you need one. With a gun you can protect yourself. Of course, in the UK, that's illegal. fine, if you like it that way. I don't, and thank God, Americans do not have to apologize to anybody, anywhere, for preferring a different solution to the problem of crime. And the second amendment keeps the government from doing something for our "own good" that we don't like.

On edit: if you take away the means, you take away the right to self-defense. Check out the people in prison in the UK for the crime of defending themselves. And a "right" isn't subject to the popular vote of the rest of the world. Further, what business is it of the rest of the world? It's not like it's foreign policy or something. It's a purely national issue.

[Mark H]

76. I have to tell you

This obsession people in other countries have with my personal firearms is rather disconcerting.

[iverglas]

128. you'll be needing to cover your eyes

This obsession people in other countries have with my personal firearms is rather disconcerting.

The obsession that numbers of people in your country have with our personal lack of firearms out here in those "other countries" is probably going to shock your sensibilities.

Now if only you could point to what evidence you saw of anyone's obsession with "your personal firearms" ...

[minavasht]

88. You admit that self-defense is a right.

Do you think that knife ownership should be a privilege? What about brick ownership?
There is yet to be invented a better self-defense tool, even children can defend themselves with guns.
I hear that in Germany one does not have the right to change a light bulb in his house and have to call an electrician. Do you think that the rest of the world should make it illegal too? It's for the children, you know...
If it was a privilege, how do you decide who has more right to live than the rest of us? Who will be responsible if someone is hurt or killed if the privilege was denied?

[iverglas]

114. good lord

Some of this discussion was very interesting (thanks to YankeyMCC for a nice concise exposition of the collective rights protected by his constitution). But this one wins the prize.

I hear that in Germany one does not have the right to change a light bulb in his house and have to call an electrician.

So now I not only need the specs some of you folks see the world through, I also need the hearing aid you use to hear it?

I couldn't find anything about German lightbulb-changing on a quick google ... but oh, no, Paco! look what I did find.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Electric%20light%20bulb

The invention of the light bulb is sometimes attributed to Thomas Alva Edison but today it is well-known that Heinrich Goebel built functional bulbs three decades earlier. Many others also contributed to the development of a truly practical device for the production of electrically generated lighting.

And it gets worse: not only did a bunch of Brits beat Edison to it, but ...

Across the Atlantic, parallel developments were also taking place. On July 24 1874 a Canadian patent was filed for the Woodward and Evan's Light by a Toronto medical electrician named Henry Woodward and a colleague Mathew Evans, who was described in the patent as a "Gentleman" but in reality a hotel keeper. They built their lamp with a shaped rod of carbon held between electrodes in an glass bulb filled with nitrogen. Woodward and Evans found it impossible to raise financial support for the development of their invention and in 1875 Woodward sold a share of their Canadian patent to Thomas Edison.

So much for yankee ingenuity ...

[minavasht]

118. Well, a cousin of mine who lives there

mentioned it once. I still can't believe it, too.
Frankly, I don't care one way or another, I'm from Eastern Europe anyway.
The point I was trying to make was that what is considered sane in one place can be seen as pure madness in another. If the Germans are OK with that lamp thing, who am I to say something? It's their lamps, right?
On a side note, I always wanted to ask you a very simple question: If attacked with no way to escape, what would you choose for self-defense - a cell phone, a stone, a knife or a gun. It's really simple , which one of these tools you think is better for self-defense?

[Jason Locke]

96. Simple

Whether you believe in God or whatever, every living creature on the planet has the right to defend itself from aggression to the best of it's abilities. God or nature or whatever you want to call it gives every creature, plant or animal ways to defend itself. Some animals run, others strike back. Plants poison or stick with nettles. Humans have intelligence hence we create our own options for defense. Our technology has progressed to the point where firearms are commonplace in our society.

This is nothing more than a physical manifestation of our intelligence and it is an useful tool for defense. It is in our nature to preserve our lives and property. Humans are territorial animals by design. We also use tools all the way back to sticks and antelope leg bones. Throughout history, we as a species have developed better and more convienent means of attack and self defense. We will continue to do so. A gun is just a step in the progression of intelligent design.

I believe that most of the world is ignorant on the matter due to a lack of understanding and misinformation by those that would seek domination over them. Many also desire direction and will listen to the strongest voice or the most often heard rhetoric.

You and I have the right to choose our direction of life. This includes what we believe in, whom we choose as leaders, and whether or not our lives are worth preserving at the cost of another life of someone intending bodily harm upon us. Going back to intelligent design... our self preservation leans greatly on our physical ability to do so. Some may be able to run away, others can fight. But, and this is paramount to the discussion, we don't have any physical means of self defense such as claws, or stings. We can beat, or bite our opponent or we can run. Our equalizer is our intelligence as a species. We make our weapons. Be it a club made from a creatures leg bone or an arrow or knife and yes, even a gun, we have the right to use anything and everything we can to defend our lives as we see fit.

To deny the right of self preservation by banning knives, guns and what have you, amounts to an attack on each and every one of us. It may not be a physical attack, but it may preceed one. No one at all has the right to tell you how you may or may not defend yourself. If they choose to disarm themselves, you do not have the right to tell them that they cannot. It must be your choice and their choice.

Self defense is most certainly a basic and fundamental right of every living thing on this planet. There are no guarantees that you will succeed or fail in defending yourself but to deny anyone the option to do so is wrong.

You ask how can a specific type of weapon be a right? Simple, it's called leveling the playing field. If you have a machine gun and intend to harm me, I want to be able to counter you one way or another. I may choose a machine gun or I may choose a pistol or a sniper rifle. It totally depends on what I feel is my best option. No other human being has the right to decide for me.

Jason

[Xithras]

97. It's nice to see that a few people here got it right.

Look, there's two basic and irreconcilable viewpoints about the origins of "rights".

Viewpoint 1: Everybody is inherently free, and is born with the right to do anything they want. Society has the ability to restrict those rights on occasion for the protection of the public interest, but every law passed IMPINGES on your natural freedoms. According to this viewpoint, everything is legal except those things that are specifically banned.

Viewpoint 2: Everybody is a member of the state and their society, and the rights of the individual are granted by that society. This viewpoint tends to see individuals as "subjects" of the government. According to it, every activity not specifically permitted is illegal...this includes "rights" (those that are not specifically granted simply do not exist).

The United States was founded on the first viewpoint, and it remains predominant here today. Europe, with its long tradition of monarchy and centralized absolute governance, tends to subscribe to the second viewpoint.

Based on this, the two sides tend to view the BoR differently. People with their minds entrenched in the second mindset view the BoF as "granting" the right of free speech, arms bearing, and religious freedom to American citizens. To them, these rights are extended by the government and can be retracted just as easily.

From the mindset of the first viewpoint (and according to most papers, the viewpoint of the people that wrote the documents), the BoR doesn't "grant" any rights at all. It simply says that THESE rights are so important that society isn't allowed to take them away. For those of us that believe in this viewpoint, ANY attempt to override ANY of the rights protected by the BoR sets off huge alarm bells.

[Buster43]

111. Hey Pert,

we live in a free and open society where we have the freedom to own firearms. You might claim to live in a free and open society but do you really? If that was the case, you wouldn't have a few rabid anti-gun politicians who believe they know what is best for you.

Nobody but me knows whats best for me and no one will dictate to me what I can and can't own.

[iverglas]

115. crapola

Viewpoint 1 ...
Viewpoint 2 ...

The United States was founded on the first viewpoint, and it remains predominant here today. Europe, with its long tradition of monarchy and centralized absolute governance, tends to subscribe to the second viewpoint.

Do none of you people live in the twenty-first century with the rest of us?

Viewpoint 3:

"Rights" is a construct developed by human beings. (Rights don't exist in nature any more than poetry and ugliness and speed do. Human beings have relationships with each other and things, describe each other and things, and make distinctions between themselves and others/things, and then reach consensuses as to the rules that govern the various relationships to which they are parties.)

Human beings are members of human groups, extending from the species to the family. "Rights" exist only in the relationship between human beings and human groups. "Rights" is the construct developed by human beings to distinguish between human beings and other things, and to form and describe relationships with one another, individually and collectively, and to distinguish that relationship from relationships with other things.

(We really do not have "rights" in our relationships with bears, and anyone who thought s/he did might find that the bears thought differently.)

"Rights" are what human beings, collectively, decide they are. Just like "poetry", and "ugliness", and "speed", are what human beings, collectively, decide they are.

Your "viewpoint 1" is just meaningless babble. Everybody is inherently free, and is born with the right to do anything they want is simply a verbose way of saying "everybody is".

All the rest of it is as meaningful as "we are all children of god", or "we were put on earth by extinct aliens from another universe". The statement itself is incapable of proof, and would be of no use to us even if it were proved. Proving to me that you are "inherently" free would accomplish ... what?

It is the agreement that individuals are "inherently" free and have "inherent" rights that is the operative factor. The "inherent" bit of the deal is simply recognition of the nature of "human" and the commonness of that nature to all human beings.

Everybody is a member of the state and their society, and ... individuals <are> "subjects" of the government is just xenophobic, ethnocentric spewing.

Everybody *is* a member of a society, however large or small it is, and many societies are indeed organized into states. Being a member of something is NOT synonymous with being a "subject" of its governing body in any sense different from the way in which the inherently free citizens of the great USofA are subjects of their own governing bodies -- both are subject to the decisions made by their societies.

This offensive idiocy appears to be widespread in your country that I can only assume that it is taught to schoolchildren. In the schools controlled by the same interests that control your media. Duh. Question authority? Who, us?

For those of us that believe in <Viewpoint 1>, ANY attempt to override ANY of the rights protected by the BoR sets off huge alarm bells.

Allow me to rephrase.

For those who claim that tautological assertions about rights and freedoms are meaningful and that change, far from being inherent in life itself, let alone potentially a good thing, is either impossible or to be resisted, (their particular interpretation of) the arrangements made, at one long-ago instant in time in a very particular set of circumstances, by a tiny homogeneous group of human beings as limited as anyone else by their own experiences and as tainted as anyone else by their own interests, must never be questioned or altered, the archaic and arcane words in the US constitution, unlike anything else ever spoken by human mouth or written by human hand or thought by human mind, are the peak of perfection and must not be questioned, altered or rejected by any more diverse group or any individual with different experiences and interests.

The rest of the world just happens to be better educated.

Read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lately?
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

They like it in the UK, New Zealand, South Africa and Jamaica, to name but a few countries that have taken it as their model in devising new instruments to guarantee and protect rights and freedoms. (And no, I certainly won't claim that we came up with all by our lonesomes out of thin air. I'd look as foolish as anyone who said that of the US Bill of Rights.)

How 'bout the European Convention on Human Rights?
http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html

Give 'em a shot, and let us know how they fit into that every activity not specifically permitted is illegal...this includes "rights" (those that are not specifically granted simply do not exist) crap you're spouting.

And by the way ... speaking of Europe, with its long tradition of monarchy and centralized absolute governance, remind me; did the US spring magically from some North American tradition of, oh, communalism and absence of government practised by the First Nations? And your founders and framers had never heard of Magna Carta, I guess.

You are of course quite familiar with the fact that during the 1600s (well over a century before the USAmerican revolution, you see), England was governed without any monarch at all? Until a presumed collateral ancestor of mine brought Charles II back home, at the request of the Parliament. (I'd say that there's a good chance that your own ancestors were resident in England, or some other European state, at that time, too.)

Kinda like how, when the Parliament elected by the people of Canada adopted a new constitution in 1982, the Queen was appointed as the head of state of Canada. This is the concept known (at least to those of us who know these things) as "constitutional monarchy", a little thing that seems to have escaped your notice.

Canadians and citizens of the UK, just for example, are not "subjects" of anyone or anything. And we Canadians for sure have (and apparently value more highly) considerably better protection for our rights and freedoms than you have ever had. And no George W. Bush, to boot. And heck, if we ever did acquire one of them, we could just politely ask the Queen to boot him/her out.

Which would probably be just about as effective as you folks taking up your pop-guns against George W. Bush, so there ya go.

The guarantee of individuals' rights and freedoms is the broad consensus of the human group in question that the exercise of those rights and freedoms will not be unjustifiably interfered in. Absent that concensus, you can have all the "natural" rights you like, and write 'em down on all the pieces of parchment you like, and still end up completely unable to exercise them if George W. Bush and the rest of the government of your fine republican state decide that you need to be drafted and used as cannon fodder, or imprisoned for opposing their plans.

As could I, if anything like them ever got into power up here.

Funny how up here just doesn't look to be where that kind of stuff is actually happening, though, eh?

[Redneck Socialist]

112. I don't think that I can answer your question, but...

...I think I can, at least partially, explain why so many in the US feel that it is.

In a word: Mythology.

Look at our nation’s creation myth. Our country was born by violent revolution. Central to that is the idea of the citizen soldier. Joe farmer says to his wife, “Don’t keep supper for me Martha, I’m off to shoot me some of them no good, dirty, rotten, lobster backs!” He grabs his trusty musket and goes out to throw off the oppressive yoke of tyranny.

The accuracy of this image is questionable. Certainly in my schooling the contributions of the French to our revolution were glossed over. However the power of the citizen soldier mythology cannot be denied.

Fast-forward a few years and this idea of the rugged individual reaches iconic status. Think of the mountain man, the noble homesteader headed out into the wild, set to tame the land with rifle in hand. These images are central to what it means to be American.

Look at our western iconography. The lone gunslinger rides into town and with a few quick shots from his revolver he gets his well deserved revenge, sets things right and generally gets the girl all at the same time. That is powerful stuff.

Again this portrait of our past has little to do with reality, but it does represent the mythic ideal that we hold to be true.

This idea of gaining your independence through the barrel of a gun continues to this day. Look at our literature, our movies, our video games, in all of them the scene of the individual making things right through violence, usually with a gun is a very common motif. It is very hard to separate the idea, the myth of America from that of the armed individual. The idea of self-defense as a human right is certainly not a uniquely American one but I suspect that the idea of the individual creating their world with a gun is. That is precisely why so many hold gun ownership to be an inalienable right.

[Walt Starr]

113. No, it's not a circular argument

Protected rights are enumerated in the constitution. One of those protected rights is the right to keep and bear arms.

[Kire]

122. yeah

whatchu got, Pert?

[Liberal Classic]

116. Cultural differences sometimes hinder communication

I'm sure you've heard the adage about two people separated by a common language. Part of the difference stems from your government's constitution being whatever Parliment says it is. For good or ill, we get to haggle over the meaning of words in our written down constitution. Writing about these issues often necessitates bringing up U.S. history and law. I'm not trying to be U.S. centric, I am only trying to explain things from my point of view.

A significant point is the expansive nature of rights described in the U.S. constitution. The idea is not that we as people are granted legitimate rights by the government, rather the government is empowered by the people to do a limited number of legitimate things. All else the people are free to do. Another way to say this is to contrast the above with authoritarian regimes in which everything not expressly permitted is denied. This does not mean I am an anarchist. I understand that regulation of people's conduct is sometimes necessary, it is only that I stress just governance comes from the consent of the governed and the people have no duty to obey an unjust law.

I want some better reasons than "Because some people decided it was a right"

...

As a follow up, if you believe it is a "right", why do you think that the vast majority of the rest of the world doesn't think it is?

You can't have this both ways. If you want a better reason than "some people decided it was a right" I want a better reason that "some people decided it wasn't."

:)

But seriously:

I can see how self-defense could be considered a right, but the means to that end (i.e. a specific type of weapon) can't possibly be a right in itself, can it?

This is a good question. One of our civil rights leaders answered it thusly "justice too long delayed is justice denied." This is, of course, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, in his letter from Birmingham Jail in which he expresses frustration at the disparity between the concepts enshrined in law and the reality of the situation. You may ask what does the fight against racism have to do with the act of self defense? One of the things our apartheid system did was to strip minorities of their right to self defense, both physically as well as legally. I will go out on a limb to say that it is sometimes just for the victim to mete out punishment to the perpetrator at the time and place of the crime. Now, to many people this sounds like frontier barbarism. However, stay with me long enough to read my response to what I consider a very worthwhile question: If you can see how self defense could be considered a "right," what good is it to have a right without the means to excercise it?

This is really deep question, and better thinkers have chewed on it than I. Thanks for asking it.

[iverglas]

117. and to you too.

A significant point is the expansive nature of rights described in the U.S. constitution. The idea is not that we as people are granted legitimate rights by the government, rather the government is empowered by the people to do a limited number of legitimate things. All else the people are free to do.

Crapola.

Not in and of itself, but as your apparent statement of the difference between the US and the rest of the world.

If you are seriously saying that your statement does *not* apply in the UK (or anywhere else that might be relevant), would you care to enlighten us as to the sources of your knowledge, and what they say?

Heck, you could even provide us with the authority for that "the government is empowered by the people to do a limited number of legitimate things" bit. Are those "legitimate things" enumerated somewhere? Citation?

I'll bet your founders & framers made their views clear someplace in the US Constitution about the raising of taxes to pay the medical expenses of the elderly and indigent ... I just am not seeing what list it's on, exactly.

And how 'bout those speed limits, eh?

[Liberal Classic]

119. To continue

A significant point is the expansive nature of rights described in the U.S. constitution. The idea is not that we as people are granted legitimate rights by the government, rather the government is empowered by the people to do a limited number of legitimate things. All else the people are free to do.

Crapola.

Sorry, but that is the idea of liberty. When we pass a law, such as your example of a subsidy to the poor or the gun control issue, we're ceding a small part of our soverign rights and giving the government the authority to do a certain task.

If you are seriously saying that your statement does *not* apply in the UK (or anywhere else that might be relevant), would you care to enlighten us as to the sources of your knowledge, and what they say?

Hmm. Judging by your tone, you're working under the misconception that I was taking a sidelong swipe at Canada or Europe or something. Why you always think the worst of me, I'll never know. Nowhere did I mean to imply that commonwealth states or other constitutional monarchies in Europe do not offer expansive rights to their citizens.

[iverglas]

120. then I gives up

Judging by your tone, you're working under the misconception that I was taking a sidelong swipe at Canada or Europe or something.

Perhaps you could offer some other reasonable explanation for what you said:

I'm sure you've heard the adage about two people separated by a common language. Part of the difference stems from your government's constitution being whatever Parliment says it is. For good or ill, we get to haggle over the meaning of words in our written down constitution. Writing about these issues often necessitates bringing up U.S. history and law. I'm not trying to be U.S. centric, I am only trying to explain things from my point of view.

A significant point is the expansive nature of rights described in the U.S. constitution.

Beats me.


Sorry, but that is the idea of liberty.

I think it was rather obvious that what I was referring to as crapola was not "the idea of liberty", but the idea that it is unique to the USofA.


When we pass a law, such as your example of a subsidy to the poor or the gun control issue, we're ceding a small part of our soverign rights and giving the government the authority to do a certain task.

So let's try it again. If you are not asserting that this is what distinguishes the US from some other relevant country or countries, what was this all about? --

A significant point is the expansive nature of rights described in the U.S. constitution. The idea is not that we as people are granted legitimate rights by the government, rather the government is empowered by the people to do a limited number of legitimate things.

While you're at it, you might explain what on earth "your constitution being whatever Parli<a>ment says it is" means, and how you might distinguish that situation, whatever it is, from the process for amending the US constitution. Maybe you could just give us your explanation of the concept of "unwritten constitution", and of why you seem to think that this means that it is whatever Parliament says it is.

[Liberal Classic]

121. Please don't take everything I say as some kind of insult

Have I ever said people aren't free in European countries? No. Have I ever said that liberty is foreign to European nations? Certainly not! How could you read that into my post, unless you were already of the mind that I am insulting to Europeans somehow? All I said in my first post in this thread is that I am aware that there are differences in legislative systems between the U.S. and Canada and various countries in Europe, but when discussing American gun control it is nearly impossible to avoid the topic of American constitutional law. I was trying to disclaim my post to show I am aware there non-United Statians on the board and that I was writing to a Brit. Good heavens! The melodrama!

And after all this silly exchange you've made no comment on the original author's post that he could, in theory, see a right to self defense.

Maybe you could just give us your explanation of the concept of "unwritten constitution"...

The U.K.'s constitution is not codified into a single document but is comprised of the body of law including acts of parliment, treaties, EU law, common law and royal perogative.

Sheesh!

[Left in IL]

123. another try

Here are some quotes from Thomas Hobbes, which basically says everyone has a right to self defense.

"Whensoever a man Transferreth his Right or Renounceth it; it is either in consideration of some Right reciprocally transferred to himselfe; or for some other good he hopeth for thereby. For it is a voluntary act: and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some Good to himselfe. And therefore there be some Rights, which no man can be understood by any word, or other signes, to have abandoned, or transferred. As first a man can not lay down the right of resisting them, that assault him by force, to take away his life; because he cannot be understood to ayme thereby, at any Good to himselfe. The same may be sayd of Wounds and Chaynes, and Imprisonment; both because there is no benefit consequent to such patience ... as also because a man cannot tell, when he seeth men proceed against him by violence, whether they intend his death or not. ... And therefore if a man by words, or other signes, seems to despoyle himselfe of the End, for which these signes were intended; he is not to be understood as if he meant it, or that it were his will; but that he was ignorant of how such words and actions were to be interpreted." pg 68

To come now to the particulars of the true Liberty of a Subject; that is to say, what are the things, which though commanded by the Soveraign, he may nevertheless, without Injustice, refuse to do; we are to consider what rights we passe away, when we make a Commonwealth; or (which is all one) what Liberty we deny ourselves, by owning all the Actions (without exception) of the Man, or Assembly we make our Soveraign. For in the act of our Submission, consisteth both our Obligations and our Liberty; which must therefore be inferred by arguments taken from thence; there being no Obligation on any man, which ariseth not from some Act of his own; for all men equally, are by Nature Free. And because such arguments, must either be drawn from the expresse words. I authorize all his Actions, or from the Intention of him who submittedth to his Power, which Intention is to be understood by the End for which he so submitteth) ; The Obligation, and Liberty of the Subject is to be derived, either from those Words (or other equivalent;) or else from the End of the Institution of Soveraignty; namely, the Peace of the Subjects within themselves, and their Defence against a common Enemy.

First therefore, seeing Soveraignty by Institution, is by Covenant of every one to every one, ... or Child to the Parent; It is manifest, that every Subject has Liberty in all those things, the right whereof cannot by Covenant be transferred. I ahve shewn before in the 14 Chapter, that Covenants, not to defend a mans own body, are void. Therefore,

If the Soveraign command a man ... not to resist those that assault him; yet hath that man the Liberty to disobey.

Again, the Consent of a Subject to a Soveraign Power, is contained in these words, I authorize, or take upon me, all his actions; in which there is not restriction at all, of his own former natural Liberty. pg 114

The Obligations of subjects to the Soveraign, is understood to last, and no longer, than the power lasteth, by which he is able to protect them. For the right men have by Nature to protect themselves, when none else can protect them, can by no Covenant be relinquished. ... the end of Obedience is Protection; which, wheresoever a man seeth it, either in his own, or in anothers sword. pg 116

Chap XIV

The Right of Nature, which Writers commonly call Jus Naturale, is the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himselfe, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own Judgment, and Reason hee shall conceive to be the aptest means thereto.

A Law of Nature, (Lex Naturalis) is a Precept, or general rule, found out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same; and to omit, that, by which he thinketh it may be best preserved. pg 66



Leviathan circa 1650
Thomas Hobbs 1588 - 1679
Dent: London 1914

[iverglas]

124. good lord again

Here are some quotes from Thomas Hobbes, which basically says everyone has a right to self defense.

And *I* say ... well, you know what I say. It has to do with moons and cheeses.



They agree with the Pope, and I just don't care. You agree with Hobbes, and I care ... why?

I'll just offer Foucault:

http://it.stlawu.edu/~pomo/mike/critical.html

Lyotard and Foucault are in essence advocates of the "revolution of desire against any kind of structure, legality--whether bourgeois or proletarian, formal or substantive" (Lash, 106). They go so far as to disavow themselves of the belief in any kind of natural human rights to be defended. For, "if we understand rights in terms of the justified powers that are ascribed to individuals, then there must be a second and seperate instance, typically the state or political doctrines themselves--as in natural rights theory--that does the justifying" (Lash, 106). Foucault views any institution designed to defend natural rights as inevitably bound to end up as oppressive as the Soviet state. For Foucault and Lyotard, the only way to bring about an end to oppression, is through the "complete decodification of desire," in which signifiers don't take precedence over the signified, where the narrative and text doesn't take precedence over the image, where the mind doesn't take precedence over the body, and where ultimately rationality doesn't colonize the unconscious. In a sense, poststructalists in their call for the decodification of desire and the unconscious, are essentially calling for the decolonization of the mind as a means to decolonize the system.

Not that I necessarily agree with Foucault. But anybody who wants to can swing him at your Hobbes, and who wins and loses will be ... well, it will be purely a matter of opinion, won't it?

If the Soveraign command a man ... not to resist those that assault him; yet hath that man the Liberty to disobey.

Shee-it; who died and made him Moses?

The fact that your opinion (one assumes) was shared by your Mr. Hobbes proves precisely nothing.

A propos of which, allow me to politely request, re:

... all men equally, are by Nature Free.

that you prove it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

125. "Right to bear arms" etc. was a political statement.

In Britain at the time, as well as on the Continent, the right to bear arms was restricted to gentlemen and those in the king's service. Giving all citizens the right to bear arms is, in the political language of the time, a clear statement against legally-enforced social class distinctions. As such, it's an anachronism.

[highlonesome]

126. Enlightenment ideal of self evident rights

It basically goes back to the enlightenment idea that human beings in nature are born with self-evident inalienable rights and that the only truly moral purpose of government is to protect those rights.

One right human beings have inalienably is the right to defend oneself and one's family. Now often that's interpreted in terms of the right to protect ourselves from intrusive government -- which is true, but is also rapidly becoming irrelevant in these days of high tech powerful weaponry.

But it is also a right in a more basic sense: the right to defend your home from intruders or the right to protect your person from others -- not necessarily government.

Much of that ideal goes to the concept that when we come to depend on government for such basic protections then, well, we're living in tyranny. So, in many ways if one must rely completely on government to protect himself and his property, the government can at some point simply choose NOT to protect you thereby controlling your inalienable right to protect yourself.

It's a subtle point and in some ways similar to the idea of jury nullification. If government is able to pass tyrannical laws, juries can simply refuse to convict, thereby rendering tyranny impossible. If the government is unable or unwilling to protect you, guaranteeing the right to bear arms allows you to protect yourself. Judging that guns is the proper level of arms to guarantee simply makes the right meaningful. I mean,who'd care about the right to bear knives and big stick? Good luck with that one.

[iverglas]

127. what's actually self-evident

It's a subtle point and in some ways similar to the idea of jury nullification. If government is able to pass tyrannical laws, juries can simply refuse to convict, thereby rendering tyranny impossible.

Hmm. Wherever did that government come from? Gosh, you mean it was elected? By the same pool of people that jurors come from? And that's how it was able to pass those laws?

What a fascinating theory that is. People elect a government and then "nullify" the laws it passes. Or maybe the people who get on the jury somehow managed to get picked from the group of people who voted for another party for government -- and then they get to "nullify" the laws passed by the government that the majority voted to elect.

Hot damn. If I'm ever charged with murder, I'll just cross my fingers that the people who get on the jury don't believe that it should be illegal to kill someone else, and are willing to "nullify" that tyrannical law.

What is it about the concept of democracy, that it seems to escape you folks so regularly?

Much of that ideal goes to the concept that when we come to depend on government for such basic protections then, well, we're living in tyranny. So, in many ways if one must rely completely on government to protect himself and his property, the government can at some point simply choose NOT to protect you thereby controlling your inalienable right to protect yourself.

Uh ... sez who? Who exactly says that "the government can at some point simply choose NOT to protect you"? If a government is elected to perform a range of functions, one of which is "protecting you", why would you say that the government could simply choose not to do it? Can it also simply choose not to run elections? Pay its employees? Fix the potholes?

Well ... yes, some things it can indeed choose not to do: the things on which the courts will defer to the legislature as being properly matters of public policy to be decided by the public's elected representatives.

And then it can get voted out. Again, is this concept really that foreign in the great republic to the south of me?

It basically goes back to the enlightenment idea that human beings in nature are born with self-evident inalienable rights and that the only truly moral purpose of government is to protect those rights.

... But ... but ... if government can't do that, or can't be trusted to do it ... what are you saying??

Anybody noticed how we're not living in the 18th century anymore? Considered that (really quite nonsensical) 18th century ideas about what is and is not "self-evident" just might not be the best tools for the job of operating a liberal democracy?

Just wondering, as always.

[highlonesome]

130. some examples

Well as far as jury nullification goes-

Suppose for one thing you're an ethnic minority routinely harrased by police. You can be charged with something and the jury can make the statement that they feel current methods are racist by refusing to convict. Some theorize this is exactly what happened during the OJ trial. It also goes on much more than most people think, mainly because no one wants you to know that the right to jury nullification exists.

And the same goes for you're right to protection. Suppose you're an ethnic minority who owns a grocery store and the police basically knowingly allow your store to be routinely robbed. Your self evident right to own arms protects your right in the absence of governmental protection.

Sure it's not the 18th century, but I'm continuously amazed at how much they got right during that time.

I think where you and I may part ways is that I believe we are born with certain civil rights. Many people today believe that rights emanate from government. You seem like you may feel that way.

[iverglas]

134. funny ...

"Many people today believe that rights emanate from government. You seem like you may feel that way."

And here I'd thought I seemed like I felt kind of soft and squishy.

[UmSamir]

131. [... i.e. a specific type of weapon...]

You may throw radishes if you wish, but in my neighborhood, you'd be the perfect target for crime with that attitude.

Contrary to what seems to be popular belief in some parts of the world, there really ARE bad guys who'll shoot you regardless of how you feel about guns. They exist, and are literally walking the streets all over the world.

<... the vast majority of the rest of the world...>

The leaders of some areas of the world don't allow the law-abiding citizens to be armed because they fear them. Here in the U.S. law-abiding citizens are armed because we fear criminals.

(I beleive the vast majority of the world is armed.)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

135. I'm afraid I don't think you're going to get

a better reason than "because some people decided it was a right".

I don't think that an *inalienable right" is a concept that makes sense. Where would it come from? I think that it makes far more sense to think of "rights" as things that humans choose to accord one another.

[highlonesome]

142. democratic tyranny....

....sounds nice, but I'd rather live in a free society.

An inalienable right is a right that you're born with regardless of how convenient it is for everyone else that you possess it.

I mean, the right to freedom of speach inherently implies a freedom of opinion. So what if you have some sort of opinion you write about that a simple majority finds disdainful -- like support of same sex marriage. By your line of reasoning couldn't they vote to take away your right to speak on that simply because "...it makes far more sense to think of rights as things that humans choose to accord one another?"

To me, it's this kind of thinking that keeps losing elections for the left and why "liberal" has to some extent become a dirty word.

A good source to read about the idea of inalienable rights is Thomas Paine. His books can be found in most libraries and book stores.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

144. Yes, the majority can

vote to take away my right to support same sex marriage without sanction, in just the same way that they can, and have, voted not to give me a right to incite people to murder without sanction.

They would be wrong to do so, but a system under which there are certain laws which a sufficiently great majority of the populace cannot change is worse than one in which there are not.

[jody]

145. Please provide a cite that recognizes either of the issues you raise as

an inalienable right at the time our Constitution was ratified. The right to defend self and property were recognized as inalienable rights at that time and as such society through its government can place reasonable controls on that right but not to the point of taking that right away.

[left15]

143. Self defense in a right

As you originally eluded to,

"I can see how self-defense could be considered a right, but the means to that end (i.e. a specific type of weapon) can't possibly be a right in itself, can it?"

Guns are simply a way of exercising that right, and they are so necessary, they are a right unto themselves. Without firearms, the right to self-defense is effectively denied.

Free speech is a right, but if we take away Radio, TV, printing presses, internet, and PA systems, the right is free speech is effectively denied.

Guns are also the great equalizer. They allow smaller weaker individuals to be on an equal footing with a larger, stronger, better combat skilled aggressor.

If guns suddenly disappeared from the country, the larger, stronger, and more combat skilled person would win in a confrontation between a criminal and a citizen. And since the criminal is picking the confrontation, he or she gets to pick a smaller, weaker appearing citizen.

[shleonny]

148. it's not a right not even in America

gun control is as old as this country. Some would tell you that they will prevent tyranny from arising if they are allowed to keep their guns, but did they do anything to stop widespread black and latino disenfranchisment in 2 elections. Did they do anything to stop the deaths of hundres of thousands of innocents in an illegal war? Have they done anything in the entire history of this country that would redeem their ownership of guns. No, pure and simple. They WANT it to be a right because they are overly macho and LOVE shooting off guns. Thats all.

[jody]

149. Sorry but most state constitutions recognize the inalienable right to

defend self and property and firearms are the most effective and efficient tool to exercise that right.

That's why the Democratic Party Platform 2004 says:
QUOTE
We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.
UNQUOTE

[shleonny]

150. they have to say that because of people who continue to misunderstand

you have no right to firearms, the supreme court has said that many times, even a cursory reading of the second amendment says that. Unless you didn't pass highschool english, and never diagrammed a sentence in your life. And no gun nut has yet come up with a good reason why it should be allowed. The rest of the world is seeing the benefits of gun control.

[slackmaster]

151. Baloney

you have no right to firearms, the supreme court has said that many times

Cite just ONE instance where the SC has said people have no right to own firearms.

...even a cursory reading of the second amendment says that....

It says the people have the right to keep and bear arms. It guarantees a right for SOMEONE to have SOMETHING by prohibiting the federal government from infringing on that right.

We can argue all day and night about what is meant by "people" and "arms", but it certainly doesn't say individuals do not have a right to have guns.

And no gun nut has yet come up with a good reason why it should be allowed.

Moot. It IS allowed. Too bad for you.

[shleonny]

157. you're wrong

Cite just ONE instance where the SC has said people have no right to own firearms.

miller, and lockyer

...even a cursory reading of the second amendment says that....

A well-regulated militia, being necessery to the security of a free state, the right of the poeple to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says the people have the right to keep and bear arms. It guarantees a right for SOMEONE to have SOMETHING by prohibiting the federal government from infringing on that right.

But individual ownership isn't what they meant and 99% of all case law says that.

We can argue all day and night about what is meant by "people" and "arms", but it certainly doesn't say individuals do not have a right to have guns.

It HAS to say they have a right to guns for YOUR argument to be sucessful, but it doesn't say that, and is not interpreted that way except by conservatives.

And no gun nut has yet come up with a good reason why it should be allowed.

You need a good reason, period, otherwise its a waste of time, money and life.

[slackmaster]

164. Your're reading too much into it

Saying the Second Amendment doesn't support an individual RKBA is not the same as saying there is no individual RKBA.

The right to keep and bear arms flows from the fundamental right of liberty.

[jody]

152. Cite a supreme court case saying "you have no right to firearms" n/t

[shleonny]

153. miller

[jody]

154. You meant that as a joke or you've never read Miller. Please cite the

statement from the Miller decision that supports your assertion.

[shleonny]

155. Reversed and remanded.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174

[jody]

159. Please cite the statement from Miller that supports your assertion. n/t

[shleonny]

161. if YOUR assertion were true it wouldn't have been reversed

sorry, take a civics class at your local community college, it'll show you how the courts work.

[jody]

162. You said "you have no right to firearms" and then said Miller supported

your assertion. Since you are unable to quote from Miller, then one must conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Good bye :hi:

[shleonny]

163. if there were a right to firearms miller would have succeeded

too bad for you

[slackmaster]

165. All the Miller case did was establish the Constitutionality of the NFA

The National Firearms Act.

Miller did not have the right to transport an unregistered short-barrelled shotgun across state lines. Have you ever read the decision? The court said that in the absense of information that having a short-barrelled shotgun bears some relationship to maintaining a well-regulated militia, they could not say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to have one.

That is not even close to saying he had no right to own a gun at all.

In our system of laws people have a right to own, say, or do anything that has not been prohibited by due process. Until all guns are outlawed it is not correct to say people have no right to own a gun. All rights exist except those that have been explicitly eliminated. If you don't comprehend that, you have a deeply flawed understanding of the relationship between citizen and government.

[shleonny]

166. it is exactly that

a right to own a gun is a right to own a gun, but there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that says a person has a right to own a gun. That was the challenge brought by miller, if that were correct it would have been decided in his favor, otherwise there is no right for a person to own a gun in the 2nd AMendment.

[slackmaster]

167. Nice goalpost move

At least you are no longer claiming there is no right to own a gun as you did in reply #150, i.e. "you have no right to firearms".

:shrug:

...there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that says a person has a right to own a gun. That was the challenge brought by miller...

The challenge brought up in Miller was against the constitutionality of the registration and tax provisions of the National Firearms Act with respect to a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long.

The courts never said Miller didn't have a right to own a gun; they didn't even say he had no right to own the short-barrelled shotgun. Lots of people do own them BTW. Doing so legally involves a federal background check and $5 transfer fee.

[shleonny]

168. if there were a right to own a gun

miller would have succeeded, he didn't succeed, there is no right to own a firearm in the constitution.

[slackmaster]

169. Flawed logic

Your argument is similar to saying that because there is no right to threaten the life of the President of the United States there is no right to free speech. People HAVE gone to prison for threatening a President. Why didn't they defend themselves by claiming the right to free speech?

:dunce:

...there is no right to own a firearm in the constitution.

There is in the Bill of Rights. Let's take the Second Amendment out of the picture completely by stipulating that it has nothing to do with the right of an individual to own a gun:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It means just exactly what I said earlier in this thread: People have the right to say, own, or do anything that hasn't been prohibited by due process.

The Miller case wasn't about the right to own a gun in general. It was about a very small subset of that right - The right to own an unregistered short-barrelled shotgun. That right existed prior to 1934. It was curtailed by the passage of the National Firearms Act. The NFA deals with certain specific types of firearms plus sound suppressors. And it's not an abolition of the right to own those items either. It's a tax law.

[hansberrym]

170. silly

Posted by shleonny
"if there were a right to own a gun miller would have succeeded, he didn't succeed, there is no right to own a firearm in the constitution."(end quote)

Does the freedom of speech mean that one can say whatever one wants whenever one wants? If a person claims that they have a right under the First Amendment to scream "fire" in a theater, but loses thier case in court, does this mean there is no individual freedom of speech in the constitution? Can it really be that if we can not say whatever we want whenever we want to, then there is no freedom of speech?



If Mr. Miller had NO individual right to possess ANY gun, why then did the Supreme Court make the following ruling?

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.


It would have been pointless to consider whether Mr. Miller had a right to possess or use a PARTICULAR gun(sawed-off shotgun), IF in fact he NO right to keep ANY gun. And it would have been pointless to remand the question of the military usefulness of the particular weapion for further proceedings, if in fact it had no bearing on the outcome of the case.

Also the Supreme Court plainly did NOT use the phrase "to keep and bear arms" in the conjunctive sense which the Collective Rights advocates claim is the proper interpretation, nor does the Court's citation of Aymette support the conjunctive meaning of the phrase.


Why don't you humor us with a sentence diagram of the amendment. I am hoping that your grasp of grammar is better than your grasp of logic.

[Atigun]

160. Why gun ownership is a right

Apparently you live in the UK so I doubt if you can understand the right of Americans to bear arms. For example, I live in Alaska so I will try to explain to you why gun ownership by private citizens exists. I need a firearm to protect myself from predators such as grizzly bears when I go for fishing for salmon. This is reasonable. When I'm in the lower 48 I need a firearm to protect myself from human predators when I visit the 7-11, Quiksak, whatever to purchase a quart of milk or a 6-pak of beer. This is reasonable. If I wish to engage in varmint control (sport killing) I will need a firearm. This is reasonable. If I go hunting for an animal that will supply me and my family with meat for the winter I will need a firearm. This is reasonable. If I wish to recreate by visiting a trap, skeet, sporting clay or rifle range I will need a firearm. This is reasonable. If I enjoy the intellectual pursuit of firearms history then owning a historically significant firearm is gratifying. This is reasonable.
Some people who post on DU forums may bring the Website "Democratic Underground" under scrutiny by the Dep't. of Homeland Security. Keep in mind that M. Chertoff, the current appointee as head of Homeland Security is a NeoCon of uncertain allegiance and has previously attacked US citizens who were politically opposed to a foreign state. Such attacks were sanctioned by the sock-puppet Bush regime. The Bush regime itself is of uncertain probity since the 2004 election has an uncertain provenance.
So, I can list many reasonable reasons for having a firearm. Protect myself from bears, provide myself with a caribou prime rib, satisfy my intellectual curiosity and maybe win a gold-plated tin trophy at the local trap club. However, in the final analysis, firearm ownership gives the individual the right to say "Fuck you assholes and I'm taking at least one of you pricks with me". This is reasonable. No doubt that some will now begin to whine (whinge) about the disadvantaged minorities. Oh, well.
So, Mister Pert, my right to have a firearm comes from my having firearms. My further thoughts on this subject are inappropriate on this public forum.