The Right to Self Defense

AlexanderA said:

The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing. It's a lofty-sounding work of propaganda. According to historians, even the list of complaints against the rule of King George III was grossly overstated.

The principal author of the Declaration,Thomas Jefferson, was a Deist (he believed, basically, that God set the universe in motion and then washed his hands of humanity). His words about God-given rights, therefore, were hypocritical. Even more hypocritical was his idea that "all men are created equal" since he himself was a major slaveholder. He didn't even free most of his own children with his longtime slave mistress upon his death!

Above all, the Founders were politicians. Politicians then were as dishonest as politicians today are. This never changes.

Click to expand...

Ah yes. The Founding Fathers bashing. That didn't take long. Thomas Jefferson-the guy everyone loves to hate. Complete with a critique of the Declaration. How en vogue. I wonder, to what historical character will you apply today's woke moral standards next. THR needs a dislike button.

Kleanbore writes:

In your mind, perhaps, but Heller said differently.

Click to expand...

Yes, fortunately, Heller wasn't based on philosophy.

danez71 said:

Philosophically, does the weak defend themselves or just jump inside the strongs' mouth when they're hungry?

Click to expand...

The weak defend themselves on their own volition and not because some Supreme Being gave them the means to do so. After all, the same Supreme Being gave the fangs to their predators. Nature is evenhanded in that way.

The point being, that rights are what we make of them. They are not handed down to us from on high. In every single instance, what we think of as "rights" were taken at great cost from reluctant rulers. (Who, incidentally, were claiming that God was on their side.)

This is the weakness of the "inherent rights" argument regarding self defense. It's not an argument we should be relying on. Better to argue that the right to self defense was something that we achieved.

AlexanderA said:

....The point being, that rights are what we make of them. They are not handed down to us from on high. In every single instance, what we think of as "rights" were taken at great cost from reluctant rulers.....

Click to expand...

Rights aren't invented. Rights aren't given. Rights exist. Your comment might be rephrased to say, "what we think of as rights were recognized and reclaimed at great cost from reluctant rulers...."

AlexanderA said:

The only thing that Heller concretely held was that you could keep a loaded revolver at home for self defense.

Click to expand...

Although the statement I've quoted is incorrect in at least three ways, unlike your other posts here, it does address the topic of this thread.

AlexanderA said:

The Heller decision is not what you think it is.

Click to expand...

If you would like to have a reasonable discussion about what I think Heller is, then start a new thread and I'll be glad to participate there.

AlexanderA said:

The weak defend themselves on their own volition and not because some Supreme Being gave them the means to do so.

Click to expand...

That seems like double talk. How did they get their will to survive?

AlexanderA said:

In every single instance, what we think of as "rights" were taken at great cost from reluctant rulers.

Click to expand...

Correct, because of out inherent Right to to life, liberty and volition of happiness.

The laws of the jungle, as you said, works both ways. At times, the weak rise up eat the strong as they have an inherent right and will to survive just as they strong does.

More back to topic, the preamble to the lays out the intent of the constitution and mentions common defense. It's illogical to think that common defense could be achieved with out including self defense to some degree.

If a right is “inalienable” or “God-given” then why does the state have the power to take it away? Take the loss of gun rights and physical freedom of someone convicted of a felony. Does the state trump God in this instance, because liberty is specifically named as an inalienable right in the DOI (though not the Constitution)?

Some of you are dogpiling on AlexanderA without understanding his point. Words on paper describing the hardiness of a right are meaningless if circumstances are such that the right can only be exercised in a practical way.

You may think God gave you a right, but in some cases you also need to ask him why he’s not letting you use it. Sometimes you have to pick up the hoe and weed your own garden.

What rights are inherent varies in the USA between periods in time and cultural changes. Rights vary between cultures and societies throughout the ages. There are about 1400 religions and quite a few deities that various people believe in. Which particular deity gave you the right to keep and bear arms? Of course, you think your deity is the 'real one'.

AlexanderA makes reasonable points that rights are a societal construct and not fundamental laws of the universe such as the laws of physics or mathematical principles.

It is not so long along that people of color were claimed not to be people or to even have rights as obviously supported by the popular religions of the USA.

There is a debate that some moral behavioral principles are wired into us by evolution for prosurvival of the species. A simple example is why we think babies are cute. That is because their body proportions are programmed to evoke care of the young. Thus hurting babies is immoral - not that we haven't done that.

Whenever we go down the road that God specifically gave you the right to have this or that gun, it becomes ludicrous. The idea of natural rights is just an offshoot of a faith based belief. Nature? Does the baby turtle have the right to be cared for by its mother? They are not.

Unless one can make a case for a 'right' bettering the interests of society or a specific segment of society with the ability to have that right implemented, it is not 'right' that will be instantiated. Just saying, you have a God given right might help Wayne get a check but it won't convince people opposed to gun rights.

No "right" exists in a vacuum. (And that especially applies to the right of self defense.) In a State of Nature, might makes right. Your remedy is to become mightier than your oppressor. And that, in a nutshell, is why we have guns and lawyers.

danez71 said:

Correct, because of out inherent Right to to life, liberty and volition of happiness.

Click to expand...

Whoa. Jefferson was playing with words here. In the original draft of the Declaration, the wording was "life, liberty, and property." "Property" was changed to the meaningless "pursuit of happiness" because some of the antislavery Founders pointed out that much "property" was held in the form of slaves. Never mind that "liberty" was left in despite Jefferson's ownership of hundreds of slaves. The whole document is a monument to hypocrisy (despite being useful in the historical moment). I'm not saying that Jefferson wasn't a genius. Quite the contrary, but he did have to overcome some "cognitive dissonance."

I think "God-Given" is a term of art meant to convey the idea that these rights are universal and that they precede the institutions charged with protecting them.

Some of y'all take things too literally.

There is no such thing as a "right"
There is only what can be taken, or defended.

Since the beginning of man...
Ignore at your peril.

.

Stand Your Ground laws and Castle Defense laws come to my mind.

States like California (back in the 80-90's),,,
Was a state that required you to flee if you were able.

My MIL almost got caught in that web of absolute ridiculousness,,,
She beat a burglar with a lamp maiming him severely.

The DA charged her saying she could have escaped into her bathroom.

Fortunately she could afford a lawyer who argued her defense,,,
The DA eventually dropped all charges.

One of the many many many things that got me to leave California.

Aarond

.

The Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide

ATF Publication 5300.4 atf-p-5300-4.pdf 243 pages

THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968

TITLE 18, UNITED STATE CODE, CHAPTER 44

TITLE I : STATE FIREARMS CONTROL ASSISTANCE

PURPOSE

Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.

Supposedly Congress recognized "personal protection" as a "lawful activity" involving "the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms".

bdickens said:

I think "God-Given" is a term of art meant to convey the idea that these rights are universal and that they precede the institutions charged with protecting them.

Some of y'all take things too literally.

Click to expand...

Ditto.