[Werewolf]

I'm currently in a discussion with a European about inalienable vs codified rights. He contends that the right of individual self defense not being codified in the constitution means that we only have that right if the government gives it to us. The Bill of Rights which enumerates which rights the government cannot infringe upon and in fact must protect leaves out the right of self defense. I am of a mind that the the right to self defense does not require codification but that will get me no where and is just an opinion anyway (even if one widly held).

We all know here that the the right of self defense is inalienable - we have it whether or not the constitution enumerates it or not.

What I'd like to know is there any constitutional foundation for allowing US citizens to defend their individual selves.

Sorry guys but I don't see it. Even though I agree that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right it appears that that right exists to provide for the defense of the collective and not the individual.

One can extrapolate the right to self defense from the Declaration of Independence but that document has no legal standing as a source of law in the US.

So what is the constitutional foundation for the right to individual self defense?

Any help along these lines with cites if possible would be greatly appreciated because right now I can't find any constitutional justification for individual self defense being a right.

[Hkmp5sd]

The Constitution is about how the government functions and how it interacts with the citizens. It was never the purpose of the Constitution to be the complete list of everything you are allowed to legally do. It merely limits what the government can do to you.

The laws covering self-defense were then written by the federal and state governments. No one in the 1700s would have even remotely considered that at some point, someone would question the legality of a person defending themself when attacked.

IMO, self-defense is an instinct both in humans and animals. Only with intense indoctrination is that instinct removed. It takes years of brainwashing to create sheeple.

[StLGlocker]

He contends that the right of individual self defense not being codified in the constitution means that we only have that right if the government gives it to us.

Sounds to me like you're wasting your time even having the discussion. Someone so completely dependent on others is blind, deaf and dumb until his betters tell him otherwise. He might as well be a dog, with the State as his master.

[benewton]

I'm slowly learning about the entire constitutional argument, though, being human, I've always known that I've got to take care of myself. Too, I'm a whole lot better at PIC 16C84 circuit designs...

Our Constitution does NOT grant rights: it restrains the federal government from "ever" stepping on ours. While I forget the ammendment, probably 10, though, it says that any rights not specifically listed and granted to them, are forbidden to the feds.

Too, rights are just that: how can they be either granted or forbidden? By anyone, or any group?

The eurotrash idea that you need permission from the government to be alive might be PC, and it might even, after a fashion, work there. But this country is, to me at least, a group of individuals working toward a common goal, by choice, rather than compulsion.

And to be an individual, you must have the tools you need to survive, or you won't for very long,


Please don't ask me to repeat this on 4/15, since I tend to have a very different view of the group to goals gig....

[Mike Irwin]

Not codified in the Constitution...

Excuse me?

The First, Third, Fifth, and other Amendments have all been held to address the right of the INDIVIDUAL, not the collective corpus.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General, has held, in writing, that the Second Amendment is an individual, not collective, right.

The writings of the Founders and Framers also leave absolutely no doubt as to what was in their minds with regards to the individual possession of firearms by citizens.

[Hkmp5sd]

I'm slightly confused on the European's question.

Does he agree the 2A protects the right of the individual to own firearms, but since the constitution does not specifically say if Joe Blow tries to dismember you with an axe, you cannot legally defend yourself?

OR

Is he trying to argue that the 2A does not apply to individuals and based on that and with no other direct reference to self defense, a person cannot legally defend themself?

[Delmar]

The Euro seems to be confused between the devine right of kings vs We, the People. Can't blame him-we have a lot of homegrown Americans in the same dilemma!

[geekWithA.45]

One of the great judges said something to the effect that the two documents (DOI & Const) are inseparably bound, and that the Const must always be read "in the light of the DOI."

The right to defend yourself is Self Evident.

If it's not, you deny your own right to continue existing in the face of opposition.

I also offer this:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Justice cannot exist if you don't have the right to exist.
Tranquility cannot exist if you don't have the right to exist.
The Blessings of Liberty cannot exist if you don't have the right to exist.

[Mr. Bombastic]

Living with Europeans, I know how you feel.

I try and explain to them that rights do not come from Man; rights are inherent. Every living creature has them.

A cat does not need to be 'granted' the right to self defence by the government. A cat will use every weapon at its disposal to stay alive. It will tear and rip at its enemies with its teeth and claws.

A chimp does not need to be 'allowed' to defend itself by law before it can do so. It will use its great natural strength, its teeth, sticks, stones, anything it can to preserve its existence.

A human does not need another human to grant it permission before it can exercise the inherent right to exist. Humans have no sharp teeth, no claws, little strength, but we can create and use weapons of our own to make up for any deficiencies in our natural form.

Without weapons; without stick, knife and gun humans are defenceless. We change from predators to prey, from predator killers to predator food.

The right to preserve your existence is a God given one. It is the first law of nature. It is in our very DNA.

[Werewolf]

Mike Irwin said:
Not codified in the Constitution...

Excuse me?

The First, Third, Fifth, and other Amendments have all been held to address the right of the INDIVIDUAL, not the collective corpus.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General, has held, in writing, that the Second Amendment is an individual, not collective, right.

The writings of the Founders and Framers also leave absolutely no doubt as to what was in their minds with regards to the individual possession of firearms by citizens.

Agree 100% but that's not the point. I did not say that the 2A was a collective right. In fact I stated that it is an individual right. The point is that nowhere in the constitution or the Bill of Rights is the right to individual self defense codified thus from the Euro's point of view it is not a right.

I cannot find anything in the constitution that codifies the right to personal self defense.

Even though I believe that the RKBA is an individual right if you read it it is very easily interpreted to mean that the right to individually bear arms is a right to bear arms in the defense of the collective and not in defense of the individual. That's not a correct interpretation IMO but it is one that could easily be made.

[Graystar]

Look at the Ninth Amendment:

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


And how about these words from the US Supreme Court

"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. "

This is because the Bill of Rights simply recognizes rights. It does not create them. We are born free, and each person has the right to self-determination.

If you say that you have no rights other than what a government grants, then you are effectively a slave. If your discussion buddy wants to submit himself to slavery, that's fine by me. Just don't try to take my gun away.

[Tamara]

He contends that the right of individual self defense not being codified in the constitution means that we only have that right if the government gives it to us.

Then he doesn't understand the Constitution at all. The Constitution doesn't grant anything to you and I; it's a list of things that you and I allow the government to do.

Ask him what he thinks of the Ninth Amendment.

In many countries, that which is not specifically allowed is forbidden. The point of the Constitution is that anything it doesn't specifically allow the government to do is forbidden... to the government.

[Werewolf]

The 9th Amendment - that's the one. Thanks!

[agricola]

If it helps, the "right to self defence" is nowhere enshrined in written law (at least in the UK), aside from "common law" (that is (and this is a crude definition) the body of legal history of this country), and probably stems from Saxon, and possibly Roman, predecessors.

Since your legal history pre-rebellion is ours, this means that our principles of common law would have applied to the Framers and so they wouldnt have even considered writing down something that already was a fundamental part of the state - they might as well have made the First Amendment say "and the Earth shall revolve around the Sun".

Since the right to self defence is pretty much universal it seems as if you might be getting trolled.

[Mr. Bombastic]

Since the right to self defence is pretty much universal it seems as if you might be getting trolled.

I don't think so. There are many people who believe that the government grants rights and that they are not inherent. People in the UK often talk about their "right to free healthcare" when in fact, no right exists. In the European Constitution I saw a 'right to strike' section, when in fact, there is only the government granted privilege to strike.

In the UK, like in many European countries, the government has tried (and largely succeeded) in turning the right to self defence into a privilege, that only police and a handful of others are granted.

To many, self defence is simply inexcusable violence, and that we as a species are somehow 'above it'. Some people would rather see a women raped and murdered, than see that woman defend herself with a knife or gun.

[gundam007]

its not in the constitution, but the rights of LIFE, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (emphasis is mine) are the reason for the independence of this nation... and are inalienable rights of all those who live in it

[deanf]

It's like this:

The Constitution is a list of powers that we have delegated to the government, and also a list of powers that we have specifically excluded from the government.

The government may not legislate except within the scope of the limited and sharply defined powers. It matters not if you recognize self-defense as a right. The government of the United Stated simply has no power to regulate it.

[Old Fuff]

Many of out state constitutions contain amendments that say a person has the right to bear arms for self-defense. Missouri and Arizona come to mind. You can quote these to make your point, in addition to other arguments.

This is from Missouri:

Missouri State Constitution:

Article I, Section 23: "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned, but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

[Standing Wolf]

Sounds to me like you're wasting your time even having the discussion. Someone so completely dependent on others is blind, deaf and dumb until his betters tell him otherwise. He might as well be a dog, with the State as his master.

Yep. It's impossible to tell some people rights antecede government.

[CasualShooter]

From the Declaration of Independence:
...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.--
Reinforced by the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

And if it is self-evident that Life is an unalienable Right, then so, by inference, is the Right to Defend It.

[jimpeel]

Make that "inalienable vs conferred rights".

[jimpeel]

I would have sent you an outline on the Second Amendment, from the Fyrds, through the Assize of Arms, Statute of Winchester, Statute of Northampton, Train Bands, English Bill of Rights (1689) , Blackstone, and all of the American State's Constitutional reiterations of the right to arms if you were disposed to post your e-mail addy.

If you would like a copy, send me an e-mail with the word "2amend.doc" in the subject line.

If anyone else would be interested in this file, send me an e-mail with the word "2amend.doc" in the subject line. That way I will know you are from here. I don't respond to, or even open, e-mail I don't know the source.

[agricola]

mr. bombastic,

sorry, but you are talking nonsense, and I doubt you'd find ten rational people in the UK who would agree with you (note: "rational" people by definition doesnt include the LP loons)

[cordex]

sorry, but you are talking nonsense, and I doubt you'd find ten rational people in the UK who would agree with you (note: "rational" people by definition doesnt include the LP loons)
agricola,
When you define "rational" as only those who agree with you, it quickly becomes apparent that only "irrational" people can disagree.

As you have explained many times before, self defense is entirely legal in UK. However, preparing to defend yourself (through carrying a weapon of any sort) is illegal. Thus, there is a de facto restriction on self-defense, and the unintended consequence of banning self-defense for those unable to engage in hand-to-hand (or hand-to-weapon) combat.

[agricola]

cordex,

there is always a restriction on self-defence of some sort or another, even in the US.

besides he said "To many, self defence is simply inexcusable violence, and that we as a species are somehow 'above it'. Some people would rather see a women raped and murdered, than see that woman defend herself with a knife or gun.", which is to what i was referring to.

who would think "self defence" was inexcusable violence?

[jimpeel]

If it helps, the "right to self defence" is nowhere enshrined in written law (at least in the UK), aside from "common law" (that is (and this is a crude definition) the body of legal history of this country), and probably stems from Saxon, and possibly Roman, predecessors.

It is enshrined here.

English Bill of Rights (1689)

Provided that: The acts concerning the militia are grievous to the subject and that it is necessary for the public Safety that the Subjects, which are Protestants, should provide and keep arms for the common defense; And that the Arms which have been siezed, and taken from them, be restored.

This was changed by the House of Lords to, That the subjects which are Protestants, may have arms for their defense suitable to their condition and as allowed by law. The Game Act of 1671 which disallowed poor citizens from ownership of guns, traps, and other hunting commodities was changed by removing the word "guns" from the items forbidden by this act.

[cordex]

there is always a restriction on self-defence of some sort or another, even in the US.
As Yakov Smirnoff would say ...
"Yep!"
And in some areas, the US's prohibitions are very much akin to the UK's. Doesn't make it right.

Tell me, friend ... how is someone supposed to defend themselves if they aren't allowed to make even basic preparations to do so? What weapons could a regular civilian in England carry in order to ensure their safety?
Yeah, yeah ... they could sit at home with their government approved broomsticks and croquet mallets, but what if they want to go out somewhere?
who would think "self defence" was inexcusable violence.
Ah, that is what you were referring to when you went on about irrational people?
In that case, I think you may be partially right.
Someone who would stand by and watch their loved ones be slaughtered one by one and just run away or wait for the knife doesn't seem to me to be entirely human ... or at the very least they strike me as unstable and probably insane. However, there are quite a few people who advocate that very thing (standing by, waiting for the police to make things all better, not resisting, etc, etc). Some who live in my town, no doubt.
But I generally don't condemn them immediately, as most of them are simply ignorant. They have never been in a situation where their life, or the lives of their loved ones are endangered. They don't know how they would react.

Who are the "LP loons", and do they advocate extremist pacifism?

[agricola]

jimpeel,

no, thats RKBA and not "you have the right to defend yourself" - which is in common law.

cordex,

as above, self defence is not RKBA, they are linked but they arent the same thing.

The LP loons are the likes of Sean Gabb.

[cordex]

agricola,
You ignored my questions.
[H]ow is someone supposed to defend themselves if they aren't allowed to make even basic preparations to do so? What weapons could a regular civilian in England carry in order to ensure their safety?

Saying that you can defend yourself but not be allowed to carry any form of weapon is like saying travel is a "right", but outlawing vehicles. In other words, a restriction that becomes a de facto ban for many.
The LP loons are the likes of Sean Gabb
That's what I thought. Libertarians, right?
Do they conclude that sef-defense is inexcusable violence? If they do, they're a far cry from the Libertarians on this side of the pond.

[geekWithA.45]

self defence is not RKBA, they are linked but they arent the same thing.

So, you can defend yourself, against an attack, but you are limited to using empty hands or whatever pieces of flotsam that might be handy, is that what you're saying?

Really?

Are you really willing to argue that certain objects must not be used to save your own life, even if it means the failure of that defense, and consequent death?

I'm afraid that they ARE one and the same, and that splitting them is illusory. If you split them you ultimately assert that abstaining from mere possession or use of certain objects is a higher virtue than life itself.

Sorry, Agricola, I'm not gonna follow you down that road.

[Mr. Bombastic]

To many, self defence is simply inexcusable violence, and that we as a species are somehow 'above it'. Some people would rather see a women raped and murdered, than see that woman defend herself with a knife or gun.

That's nonsense? But that's people like YOU Agricola...and you don't even know it.

You rational people, have the utter cheek to tell me that I can defend myself but that I shouldn't have the ability to defend myself. You rational people tell me that 'weapons are bad' and that 'they are too violent'. Well criminals are BAD, and criminals are VIOLENT...and criminals are ARMED.

Why do you want to keep weapons banned Agricola? It only disarms victims and not criminals. That is fact. The criminals are armed, they always are; with surprise, numbers or weapons, maybe all three. Victims need equalisers. Here, they don't even have pepper spray.

How the HELL is anyone supposed to defend themselves when they have been disarmed by rational people like you Agricola?

Tell me.

Don't give me crap like 'crime doesn't happen', because it has happened, and continues too. Don't give me crap like 'you are not likely to be a victim' because that does not justify allowing criminals to murder and rape unabated. Don't give me crap like 'you are likely to know your attacker' because that makes no difference when they try to take your life.

You rational people condemn woman to rape. You advocate it by disarming the victims. You give them little hope of defending themselves.

You rational people condemn the wheelchair bound to assault and robbery if they obey your rational laws, and you condemn them to arrest if they do not.

You rational people condemn the victims, and reward the violent predators behaviour.

You rational people ban the buffalos horns so that the lions can feed without reprisal.

Immoral, tyrannical and unnatural.

[agricola]

criminals! around every corner! theyre under the bush!

[agricola]

cordex,

thats the thing - criminals are more likely to be armed in your culture, not ours. why would we want to change that?

mr bombastic,

disabled people are always going to be less able to defend themselves - or do you know of a gun that enables a blind man to accurately target the man who is attacking him?

[ARperson]

criminals are more likely to be armed in your culture, not ours. why would we want to change that?

For those of us who don't happen to know which cultures you might be referring to, could you enlighten us?

I'd hate to give a flippant answer when one wasn't necessary...or worse, not give one when it's so richly deserved.

[ARperson]

You're going about this whole Constitutional basis thing all wrong. You're looking for a justification as if there needs to be a one. It's like trying to prove the negative thing. You just can't do it.

Simply tell your European friend that if he wants to live as a subject to someone else for the rest of his life, that's his perogative. But you live in a country where one is a citizen, not a subject. And if he can't understand the idea of inalienable rights, he'd probably not fit to live in a country with them.

[tyme]

(agricola) thats the thing - criminals are more likely to be armed in your culture, not ours. why would we want to change that?
Nobody wants to change that. Nobody wants violent criminals to have easier access to guns (except the violent criminals and maybe white-collar money launderers who profit from them -- and I think there's more overlap between them than is commonly believed). But if that's the cost of allowing me to have a gun to defend myself if I'm ever unfortunate enough to have to (or heaven forbid to use against the government if that ever becomes necessary), it's worth paying.

As time goes on, your criminals will have access to more guns. You simply won't be able to confiscate firearms faster than criminals can make or import them. You cannot send the gun supply into permanent decline. The one thing you can do is recognize that citizens have a right to defend themselves with whatever they want.

[Mr. Bombastic]

thats the thing - criminals are more likely to be armed in your culture, not ours.

Because you say so Agricola, doesn't make it true. Criminals are very much armed in our culture too.

disabled people are always going to be less able to defend themselves - or do you know of a gun that enables a blind man to accurately target the man who is attacking him?

Great argument! I guess so mute people can't exercise a right to free speech; none of us should have that right!

That's total rubbish.

I think you'll find that the disabled man in the wheelchair defended himself just fine with the spray can. But you'd rather have him stabbed to death then be able to carry a self defence spray.

And you haven't even answered my question:

How the HELL is anyone supposed to defend themselves when they have been disarmed by rational people like you Agricola?

Have you even thought about how you personally could defend yourself Agricola? You think you can beat knives, guns and superior numbers with your sense of righteousness and a bit of harsh language?

[agricola]

mr. bombastic,

why keep imagining these make-believe situations? you might as well bemoan your lack of arms as it affects your ability to keep bears away from the house. :rolleyes:

[Mr. Bombastic]

Rape and violent assault are make-believe.

:scrutiny:

Okay.

:scrutiny:

Enough said.

[cordex]

Agricola,
You have not responded to one question no matter who asks it:
How is someone supposed to defend themselves if they are prohibited from preparing to do so?

Disarmed victims lacking the physical ability to defend themselves in hand-to-hand combat with attackers is no more a fantastic "make-believe situation" than criminals obtaining more weapons if law-abiding citizens are allowed to buy, own and carry them.

You aren't putting much thought into this debate. Very uncharacteristic.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

The right to self-defnse is self-evident. The right for the rain to fall does not exist in the contitution either, nor can it be legislated, nor can government repeal it. Likewise, the government can not control a right not enumerated in the constitution.

It is understood throughout law that self-defense is a right...justifiable homicide..... killed in self-defense....will not be charged...etc. Such laws are written into state law. In Utah it is one sentence. For LETHAL defensive force, you or another must be in imminent danger.

However, I have read several articles concerning persons in Britain that have been tried and convicted for self-defence using lethal means. I imaging several other "enlightened" socialist republics share the same view.

But not here in the US (except maybe for the PRK and Taxachusetts).