Basis for outrage (should have been "Basis for the Argument")

[RPCVYemen]

Amendments can be changed, amended themselves, by the authority of that same Constitution... so this is an inherently flawed, internally inconsistent argument.

The argument is so simple that it's hard to see how it could be inconsistent:

1. In the US, we the rights enumerated by the US Constitution.
2. The US Constitution enumerates the right to keep and bear arms.
3. Therefore, we have the right to keep an bear arms.

Please illustrate the inconsistency.

Political rights are derive from political power - not rational arguments. The Congress is more pro-RKBA because Howard Dean woke up and got pro-RKBA Dems elected, not because someone won a debate.

BTW, You keep wanting me to defend the Utilitarians - I keep repeating I am not a particular fan of the Utilitarians. I happen to think that they were right about "natural rights" and they were around and active at the time the Constitution was written. I think detect their arguments in the preamble to the Constitution to the Bill of Rights. I don't endorse them overall.

Mike

 

[elChupacabra!]

1) In the US, we the rights enumerated by the US Constitution.
2) The US Constitution enumerates the right to keep and bear arms.
3) Therefore, we have the right to keep an bear arms.

4) The US Constitution allows for provisions by which any enumerated right may be amended out of existence
5) Our political adversaries may well gain sufficient momentum to amend the right to keep and bear arms out of the Constitution
6) If they succeed in doing so and we see as our only source of that right the same Constitution, our right is lost forever and we have no reason to fight for its reinstitution

Does this seriously not follow for you?

ETA Note: Point 6 invalidates point 3; ergo, your argument "begs the question."

 

[ar10]

Isn't RKBA more of an ideal or privilage than a right? For example. In order to even purchase any type of legal firearm don't you have to have a background check to see if you are/were convicted of some type of violent crime? To be allowed to legally CCW a more rigorous background check is require.(excluding NY of course). In some state you have to have some type of permit to even buy ammo.

A lot has changed since 1778, some good and many bad. But what I do know is enemies of the US really don't like the idea of a well armed society. I think they realize that even if government falls it would be extremely difficult if not impossible subdue the people.

 

[elChupacabra!]

AR10 -

Our Founding Fathers certainly believed that the RKBA was a right when they added "The right to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed" into the Bill of RIGHTS... not the Bill of Privelages or the Bill of Ideals.

They believed they were codifying preexistant natural rights into formal law, protecting them against infringement... NOT granting them.

I believe as they did, and will fight to defend this right, accordingly.

 

[RPCVYemen]

If they succeed in doing so and we see as our only source of that right the same Constitution, our right is lost forever and we have no reason to fight for its reinstitution.

That's where you went off the rails. Why exactly can't we fight for new rights, or for the re-institution of a right that was lost? Didn't the 18th and the 21st Amendments do exactly that?

I see no reason that a group of people couldn't decide that there was a new right to free health care. If they worked the political process and amended the Constitution to include that right, then we would have that right. Didn't the 26th Amendment give those between 18 and 21 the right to vote?

Mike

 

[elChupacabra!]

RPCVYemen -

Aahh - you there change the basis for your defense of RKBA from the Constitution to some other, stand-alone right that can be fought for independantly of the Constitution...

Earlier, you have said that the ONLY reason you believe in the RKBA is because the Constitution provides for it:

1) In the US, we the rights enumerated by the US Constitution.
2) The US Constitution enumerates the right to keep and bear arms.
3) Therefore, we have the right to keep an bear arms.

And earlier, perhaps more pertinently,

My argument would be, "Who care if there is a logical basis or not? It's in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment gives me that right - so you can't take it away. I couldn't care less what you think, US Government."

You are blatantly changing your argument here, and in front of everyone who can read this thread.

 

[Mr. D]

Man, I had a good reply to RPCVYemen typed up and then I remembered...

Come on guys, why don't you (we) start a different thread for that discussion? This thread is supposed to be ways to combat the enemy, not differences among ourselves!

~Dale

 

[Blofeld]

Any group that you can draw a parallel with has advantages that we do not. They are protected by Hate Crime laws. They have the media on their side. They have the sympathy of politicians and courts. At a bare minimum, those who do not like them will keep their mouths shut and grudgingly accept their existence.

We do not have media support, quite the opposite. Laws that do support us, notably OC and now the whole Heller thing, are ignored. And those who do not like us will not accept a live and let live stance, they actively seek to destroy us.

We all agree that persecution of any group is wrong, and yet every time some nut goes on a shooting spree and I see it on the news, my first thought is for the victims, quickly followed by "How will gun owners be persecuted for this?"

 

[elChupacabra!]

Mr. D and ZeSpectre -

I am sorry, I know the threadjacking has gone pretty far... I really do apologize for that. In post #89, I tried my best to agree to disagree and let this argument lie, turing it to a more constructive discussion... but that gesture was met with further insults against the beliefs that I (and most of us on this board, according to this poll

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4950098

hold), so I felt urged to defend my beliefs against these really unprovoked but, more importantly, unfounded and indefensable attacks.

I really hope we can be done with this argument now. I'm tired of having it, but won't accept hearing my personal worldview called "silly" or a "piss-poor argument." That's just too much to abide.

 

[SuperNaut]

elChupacabra,

Attacking someone's position is the correct way to debate, that you took offense or that others share your position is irrelevant; and in the latter case a fallacy known as argument from popularity. It is a shame that a discussion that Ze wanted to have was de-railed.

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[elChupacabra!]

SuperNaut -

Oh no, to be sure I don't argue for my beliefs on the grounds that they are either popular or dear to me. I am totally ok with ending an argument with mutually respectful disagreement. That was actually exactly what I tried to do... but the personal attacks really reinvigorated my desire to expose the logical flaws of RPCVYemen's argument. (Also, the only reason I point to the poll is to show that even Utilitarian arguments are not going to go very far, here at least. The issue of Utilitarianism vs. Natural Rights is an issue of presuppositions - neither can be argued very effectively, as they are axioms which an individual must either accept or reject before continuing on to the real argument. I'm simply pointing out that, when RPCVYemen insults me, he insults most members of this board.)

So taking offense just gave me a reason to continue to attack the other's position... note that I never stoop to attacking the man, or commiting the ad hominem fallacy, as my opponent has. I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of it, but a personal attack is certainly a good reason to continue an attack on an oponent's argument.

Now, with that said, I do dearly want to return to the constructive discussion of the rational basis for RKBA, especially from various perspectives, such as Utilitarianism. I would like nothing more than to hear a well-constructed, internally consistent Utilitarian argument for the RKBA which can be used against anti's.

So far, I think all RPCVYemen has done is explain why the Utilitarian perspective is superior to the Natural Rights perspective. Let's discuss the actual FORMATION of that Utilitarian perspective, with the understanding that some may hold it, while others may not.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Aahh - you there change the basis for your defense of RKBA from the Constitution to some other, stand-alone right that can be fought for independently of the Constitution...

Huh? You saying that I can't argue for the creation of a new right (or in theory) for the dissolution of the old right? What do you make of the amendments that in fact do just that?

If you are arguing that the Constitution cannot be amended to create new rights or dissolve old rights, then your argument is nothing short of bizarre - since the Constitution itself allows it to be amended.

Earlier, you have said that the ONLY reason you believe in the RKBA is because the Constitution provides for it:

Let's be very clear about what I said. I said that (in the US) rights exists if and only iff they are enumerated in the (US) Constitution. Why does that some deny me the attempt to create a new right?

For example a bunch of people could decide that they want the "right to free health care". Why would prevent them from trying to amend the Constitution add that right in a new Amendment?

Right now, right to free health care does not exist (in the US). If that group of people succeeded, then the right to free health care would exist in the US. If they did not succeed, then the right to free health care would not exist.

As an actual example from the Constitution, before 1919, we had the right to manufacture, import, and export alcoholic beverages. The 18th Amendment destroyed that right. The 21st (mostly) restored it.

Before 1971, there was no right for 18 year olds to vote. That right did not exist. The 26th amendment created that right. Presumably, some new Amendment could raise the voting age to 31, and the right of 18 years olds to vote would no longer exist.

I see no reason in principle that a subsequent amendment could not revoke or modify the 2nd - I'd fight like hell against it, but it certainly could happen. In that case the right to keep and bear arms would no longer exist - just as the right to vote for 18 years olds did not exist before 1971.

What is complicated about this?

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

I am sorry, I know the threadjacking has gone pretty far... I really do apologize for that.

Come on guys, why don't you (we) start a different thread for that discussion? This thread is supposed to be ways to combat the enemy, not differences among ourselves!

I don't see us as very far off topic - here's what the OP says:

In thinking about it I've come to the conclusion that some of our "basis" are very strong, but some are terribly weak and don't hold up to scrutiny.

I think that elChupacabra are exploring whether or not the "Natural Right" basis for RKBA stands up to scrutiny or not. I maintain the the "Natural Right" basis does not hold up even to minimal scrutiny. He maintains that it does. What could be more on topic?

Mike

 

[elChupacabra!]

Actually, I'm not exploring the Natural Rights view any more at all - I've let that go eons ago... I'm just trying to point out that RPCVYemen's arguments are no more fundamentally sound than mine are - they both begin from an assumption of belief. You haven't addressed that assertion at all. Are you ever going to?

 

[elChupacabra!]

rights exists if and only iff they are enumerated in the (US) Constitution

This is your presupposition. I disagree with it, and propose that some rights - Natural Rights - exist independantly of any government's endorsement.

My disagreement is due to my fundamentally different view of humanity. You reject my fundamentally different view of humanity and substitute your own.

You are, of course, free to do this. But you can provide no more proof for your assertion above than I can for mine that "some rights exist independantly of any enumeration in the US Constitution."

At this point, both our arguments reach a point at which one must chose what one believes. Yours just as mine.

Your statement is no more fundamentally logical than mine. Your statement has no more empirical or verifiable evidence than mine. Yours arbitrarily ties rights to a document, whereas mine arbitrarily does not. Your view is as absurd in my eyes as mine is in yours.

 

[ctdonath]

said that (in the US) rights exists if and only iff they are enumerated in the (US) Constitution.

Wrong. The Constitution recognizes & enumerates a limited palate of pre-existing rights. There was a big argument among the Founding Fathers over including a Bill Of Rights at all on the grounds that by doing so it would be construed, incorrectly, exactly the way you believe.

That's why the last two enumerated rights basically say "there's a lot of other rights too, and those shall be protected as well."

Repealing the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean RKBA ceases to exist.

 

[elChupacabra!]

THANK YOU ctdonath. I've been feeling pretty lonely over here, which is strange given the fact that I KNOW I'm not the only one to believe in a natural right to self-defense on this board!

 

[SuperNaut]

elChupacabra

I haven't chimed in because I don't agree that natural = god given. I believe that natural = inherent. I can tell from your poll what you believe and I have little interest in that debate.

Mostly because personal experience shows that type of debate to be non-productive and too highly charged. Responses in this very thread have confirmed my trepidation. Ze was asking for alternate but supporting arguments in his OP, that this has turned into a natural rights vs. utilitarianism debate is sad.

 

[elChupacabra!]

SuperNaut -

I understand your hesitance. Please believe me when I say that I, too, am more concerned with rights being inherant than given from any higher power, whether that be a Judeo-Christian God, Mother Nature, Karma, anything - you're right, that debate can get pretty out of hand, and I'm not interested in engaging in it either. It's totally unproductive for the purpose of RKBA.

One's beliefs regarding the source of an inherant right are, to me, irrelevant. I've been very careful to avoid implying that any rights are inherant BECAUSE of a higher power of any sorts.

Please forgive me if I've failed to do that - I certainly don't intend to alienate any who are like-minded on this issue based on some particular "source" of an inherant belief.

In my mind, if you believe we both hold the same natural rights, I could care less why you believe that. The belief is what matters to me.

With that in mind, I've tried time and again to distance this discussion from the "natural rights vs. Utilitarianism" argument. I don't want to have this argument any more and have made that as clear as possible. With that said, I'm not going to give it up just because of attrition.

 

[Mr. D]

Chupacabra,

Feel lonely no longer! As you now know, most of this entire board agrees with you, as do I. However, I think most people are a little hesitant to jump into a conversation that now seems to have reached the point of going nowhere. You've said pretty much everything there is to say, and have said it well.

ctdonath,

Amen! I said essentially the same thing earlier, but you said it much better. Thank you.

~Dale

 

[elChupacabra!]

Thanks Mr. D.

I really appreciate your support. I'm just about sick of this argument.

 

[elChupacabra!]

DELETED... hate spammers

 

[RPCVYemen]

This is your presupposition. I disagree with it, and propose that rights exist interdependently of any government's endorsement.

One advantage of my presupposition is that it makes a statement about the existence of a right is verifiable - or more particularly refutable.

A while back I asked you if there was evidence that could potentially disprove the existence of a "Natural Right". You could not, and I pointed that then the assertion that any individual right was a "Natural Right" was an assertion. Accepting that the RKBA is a "Natural Right" requires the acceptance of a load of metaphysics - including from your "evidence" for this right that all is ought to be (the "is ought" fallacy).

My definition is in fact refutable - if a right is not enumerated in the Constitution it does not exist. No metaphysics, or assertion about what ought to exist. The fact that a statement is refutable makes it a stronger proposition.

For example, when asked about the right of 18 years olds to vote prior to 1971, you must maintain:

1. The right for 18 year olds to vote is a Natural Right, and hence has always existed - though we have no evidence of that existence prior to 1917. It somehow existed some Platonic nether world and warped into our dimension when the 26th Amendment was ratified.
2. The right of 18 year olds to vote is not a Natural Right. But it's an an Amendment just like the 2nd - how could it be different? "It's not a Natural Right because I say it's not a Natural Right!" But then we've fallen down the rabbit hole, and we are trying to debate with the Red Queen.

My definition is free of those complicated problems - the right of 18 years old to vote did not exist prior to the 26th Amendment because it wasn't enumerated in the Constitution prior to the 26th Amendment.

To put this in terms of the OP's original question, the definition that I propose stands up better under scrutiny.

Mike

 

[elChupacabra!]

RPCVYemen -

My definition is in fact refutable - if a right is not enumerated in the Constitution it does not exist

But this is NOT your basic assertion. Your basic assertion is "NO rights exist that are not enumerated in the Constitution."

This is as irrefutable an argument as mine, and, ergo, just as subject to belief or denial. It's an axiom. No axiom stands up to any scrutiny - they must all be chosen, believed. Yours just as mine.

 

[3KillerBs]

Political rights are derive from political power - not rational arguments.

The right to self-defense is not a political right. It is a fundamental human right that does not depend on any government, party, politician, or law to be inherent to every human being. Fundamental human rights are granted by God to ALL human beings (regardless of whether or not they believe in him), and cannot be revoked by any lesser authority.

Fundamental human rights are many orders of magnitude different from mere political rights such as the "right" to vote in a given party's primary election.