Glock Glockler
Member
So, Rabbi, basically our rights are whatever the govt. says they are, yes?
Individual right?
- Thread starter Parallax
- Start date
- Status
Walt Sherrill
Member
The Bill of Rights DOES apply to the states. The BOR is the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The last part of the BOR is the Tenth Amendment:
Its just a shame it didn't go farther, and specify what things should be prohibited to the states, so that the rest would be left to individuals.
The Bill of Rights clearly both recognizes and affirms "states" and "individual" rights or powers.
Its just a shame it didn't go farther, and specify what things should be prohibited to the states, so that the rest would be left to individuals.
grimlock
Member
Can you name a RIGHT that exists without, ultimately, government (or your community) to enforce it? I can't.
Well, the right to keep and bear arms does come with nifty built-in infringement countermeasures...
Well, the right to keep and bear arms does come with nifty built-in infringement countermeasures...
ksnecktieman
Member
I think it is appropriate here to reproduce the second paragraph of the Preamble To the "Declaration of the 13 United States of America".
"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, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government'
They thought we got our rights from the creator, and the Declaration just told the government to keep their hands off
"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, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government'
They thought we got our rights from the creator, and the Declaration just told the government to keep their hands off
Walt Sherrill
Member
But, have you noticed that it always takes GOVERNMENT, the Courts, and the use of power to make sure these rights aren't ignored? Sometimes government makes them appear, and sometimes it takes others to make government back off. But Government's always in the picture, somewhere.
Our Founding Fathers were faced with a problem. They were trying to prove that the King didn't have a Divine Right to rule, and the only way they could argue against that "divine" right was to say that we (as individuals) had our own DIVINE rights. Its wasn't a new argument, but it was a bit of sleight of hand.
As I noted earlier, many African Americans can tell you THEIR unalienable rights didn't exist for several centuries. And, and WWII showed that Americans of Japanese descent had no rights to property or freedom if they lived on the West Coast of the US. Unalienable rights? Hardly.
Those rights were only realized when government stepped in.
Please don't think, by my arguing like this, that I think we SHOULD NOT have these rights -- I think they are very important. They'll all parts of a social contract, and when the contract is busted, the rights go away.
I think Walt Sherrill gets it.
Rights need to have champions to remain so otherwise there will not be enough constituency for them. I think it is no coincidence that rights of gun ownership began to slip when urbanization and suburbanization became stronger. People just didnt have or need guns like they did in more rural areas. It also no coincidence that 1st Amendment rights of freedom of the press expanded just as the "Information Age" began to take hold. The best way to preserve and expand gun ownership rights is to create more gun owners, who care about it.
Rights need to have champions to remain so otherwise there will not be enough constituency for them. I think it is no coincidence that rights of gun ownership began to slip when urbanization and suburbanization became stronger. People just didnt have or need guns like they did in more rural areas. It also no coincidence that 1st Amendment rights of freedom of the press expanded just as the "Information Age" began to take hold. The best way to preserve and expand gun ownership rights is to create more gun owners, who care about it.
Gordon Fink
Member
grimlock said:
Inmates in maximum-security prisons often manage to arm themselves, so it would appear that the right to arms exists even without government approval. The only sure way to deprive someone of an inalienable right is to kill him.
~G. Fink
deanf
Member
The 2nd Amendment is moot, speaking strictly on a federal level.
No matter how you interpret it, the 2A does not delegate authority to the federal government to do anything. Furthermore, there is no delegated power anywhere in the Constitution to regulate the ownership or use of guns. Therefore, the unrestricted ownership and use of guns is a defacto right, on the federal level.
The state level is another question, as each state constitution is different.
No matter how you interpret it, the 2A does not delegate authority to the federal government to do anything. Furthermore, there is no delegated power anywhere in the Constitution to regulate the ownership or use of guns. Therefore, the unrestricted ownership and use of guns is a defacto right, on the federal level.
The state level is another question, as each state constitution is different.
KriegHund
Member
If the right is regulated by the governement its not a right.
A right is something you have and that no one should be able to take away from you...should be able to. They can....but that still doesnt mean its not a right.
You see, theres theses strange things in the constitution...theyre called rights. These rights are clearly defined. Its what America is all about.
Now if you dont f****ing understand that, the get the h*ll outta this country and go to one where the govt regulates your rights...your privaleges.
Go to china...go to N. korea... go to any other country... and then well see how much you like the government regulating your rights....
A right is something you have and that no one should be able to take away from you...should be able to. They can....but that still doesnt mean its not a right.
You see, theres theses strange things in the constitution...theyre called rights. These rights are clearly defined. Its what America is all about.
Now if you dont f****ing understand that, the get the h*ll outta this country and go to one where the govt regulates your rights...your privaleges.
Go to china...go to N. korea... go to any other country... and then well see how much you like the government regulating your rights....
lunaslide
member
In the broader, philosophical sense, Rabbi is correct in saying that a right is only a right if it can be procured and defended. It can also be said that in general, rights do not issue forth from Nature or from our Creator, but only exist as a social construct and enforced by the society that creates it.
However, in the United States, the Declaration of Independence is what lays out the principles upon which the Constitution and all other laws are established. In essence, it is the foundation on which the societal construct of our government is built. The document specifically mentions two principles that underlie everything: that individual human beings have inalienable rights and that government is established by human beings to protect those rights. No matter how the concept of rights is interpreted by people or governments in other parts of the world, in this country the presumption is that these rights are inalienable, issuing forth solely from the existence of human beings themselves.
When the government here no longer works to protect the rights that we have put it in place to protect, it is failing in its primary task. When it actively works to undermine those rights, it has become treasonous.
However, in the United States, the Declaration of Independence is what lays out the principles upon which the Constitution and all other laws are established. In essence, it is the foundation on which the societal construct of our government is built. The document specifically mentions two principles that underlie everything: that individual human beings have inalienable rights and that government is established by human beings to protect those rights. No matter how the concept of rights is interpreted by people or governments in other parts of the world, in this country the presumption is that these rights are inalienable, issuing forth solely from the existence of human beings themselves.
When the government here no longer works to protect the rights that we have put it in place to protect, it is failing in its primary task. When it actively works to undermine those rights, it has become treasonous.
Walt Sherrill
Member
That, I think, is a good summation. And I agree with what this writer and the Rabbi have both written on this point.
Rights are just theory without enforcement or champions. And it may be that WE will have to do the enforcing, as government seems increasingly confused about its purpose.
Earlier, a respondent wrote:
If they're in a maximum-security prison, what happened to their inalienable right to liberty/freedom?
If a person can be deprived of his or her inalienable rights by killing them, the right to life is clearly NOT an inalienable right...
Capital Punishment proves that. Murder proves that. Getting killed by a drunken driver proves that... And then there is the child molester who rapes and murders a young girl. What happened to HER inalienable right to life?
There are no inalienable rights. There should be, but there aren't.
There are "rights" that are given special protections or valued more highly by society, and LIFE and PROPERTY are chief among them. When these rights are attacked, society often imposes special sanctions on those who do the attacking -- if they're caught. They often aren't.
I commented earlier about the NATURE of the problem, and The Rabbi expanded on the points I was making. He wrote, in effect, that it's all theory unless someone or something acts as a champion. He then proposed the outlines of an action plan: proselytize, convert, get others involved in gun ownership. We must, in effect, become our own champions and recruit more.
Just telling others we have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms (because the Constitution says its so) is meaningless, unless a lof other folks agree.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was based on English Common Law and right to self protection; we can see that in Great Britain the right to self protection doesn't include the right to keep and bear arms. It could happen here, too.
Seems as though we need to start making converts, before its too late.
How do we get there from here?
cuchulainn
Member
Broad Laws that Address Fear of the Potential
I'm always amused at 2nd Amendment discussions that involve two sides saying their truths past each other. Both often are correct, but only to the point that they fail to see the other side is correct too.
The rancor in this thread is due to an incorrect assumption of mutual exclusivity between inalienable rights and legal restrictions. The truth is that rights are both inalienable and subject to restriction. One truth is a matter of philosophy and one is a matter of law. One truth is not a magic that negates the other. Infringement by law does not negate a right and vice versa.
I think both sides might be confusing the concept of rights (inalienable) and the concept of liberty (the legal freedom to exercise one's rights). In other words, liberty is a legal expression of rights – it is how the law interprets and deals with a philosophical concept within the bounds of society. The two rarely are identical. Thus while infrignement by law does not negate a right, it does negate the liberty, so the liberty rarely is a pure reflection of the right it expresseses.
Yes, the BoR is subject to legal limitations on liberty. This is an undeniable fact. We can argue that is wrong, but we cannot deny it is a fact. For example, the 1st is limited by libel laws, perjury laws, marketing-fraud laws, child-porn laws, the law that protects the POTUS against threats, etc.
However, I'd point out two differences:
1) Narrow vs. Broad
The rest of the BoR is protected broadly, while the 2nd is protected narrowly. If the 2nd were protected as broadly as the 1st, for example, we'd have 90% of our RKBA concerns solved. We'd probably live happily with the few legal restrictions left over -- such as no guns for the insane.
2) Actual vs. Fear of Potential
Besides being narrow, the restrictions placed on the rest of the BoR typically involve actual problems, such as libel, etc, while the restrictions placed on the 2nd typically involve fear of potential problems. We'd solve even more of our RKBA problems if we were to lmit the restrictions on the 2nd to actual problems -- such as no guns for the insane rather than no magazines of X-round capacity for anyone because <1% of the people potentially, might, maybe have a particular type of insanity that possibly could, perhaps lead them to go on a killing spree.
In any event the concept of inalienable rights is indeed a philosophical social construct. But it is one that I believe is most valuable. It helps hold the line against broad laws that address the fear of the potential.
It helps hold the line against empty, meaningless liberties.
It is a mindset that we're losing to our own detriment, and it's not just about the RKBA
((((Incidentally, the 2nd ought to and could apply to the states through the 14th amendment, but it doesn't because the courts haven't incorporated it yet (don't hold your breath).)))
I'm always amused at 2nd Amendment discussions that involve two sides saying their truths past each other. Both often are correct, but only to the point that they fail to see the other side is correct too.
The rancor in this thread is due to an incorrect assumption of mutual exclusivity between inalienable rights and legal restrictions. The truth is that rights are both inalienable and subject to restriction. One truth is a matter of philosophy and one is a matter of law. One truth is not a magic that negates the other. Infringement by law does not negate a right and vice versa.
I think both sides might be confusing the concept of rights (inalienable) and the concept of liberty (the legal freedom to exercise one's rights). In other words, liberty is a legal expression of rights – it is how the law interprets and deals with a philosophical concept within the bounds of society. The two rarely are identical. Thus while infrignement by law does not negate a right, it does negate the liberty, so the liberty rarely is a pure reflection of the right it expresseses.
Yes, the BoR is subject to legal limitations on liberty. This is an undeniable fact. We can argue that is wrong, but we cannot deny it is a fact. For example, the 1st is limited by libel laws, perjury laws, marketing-fraud laws, child-porn laws, the law that protects the POTUS against threats, etc.
However, I'd point out two differences:
1) Narrow vs. Broad
The rest of the BoR is protected broadly, while the 2nd is protected narrowly. If the 2nd were protected as broadly as the 1st, for example, we'd have 90% of our RKBA concerns solved. We'd probably live happily with the few legal restrictions left over -- such as no guns for the insane.
2) Actual vs. Fear of Potential
Besides being narrow, the restrictions placed on the rest of the BoR typically involve actual problems, such as libel, etc, while the restrictions placed on the 2nd typically involve fear of potential problems. We'd solve even more of our RKBA problems if we were to lmit the restrictions on the 2nd to actual problems -- such as no guns for the insane rather than no magazines of X-round capacity for anyone because <1% of the people potentially, might, maybe have a particular type of insanity that possibly could, perhaps lead them to go on a killing spree.
In any event the concept of inalienable rights is indeed a philosophical social construct. But it is one that I believe is most valuable. It helps hold the line against broad laws that address the fear of the potential.
It helps hold the line against empty, meaningless liberties.
It is a mindset that we're losing to our own detriment, and it's not just about the RKBA
((((Incidentally, the 2nd ought to and could apply to the states through the 14th amendment, but it doesn't because the courts haven't incorporated it yet (don't hold your breath).)))
Rev. DeadCorpse
Member
I'm still trying to figure out why the hell most of you seem bent on just giving up. Yes. The Government is infringing our Rights. Yes. More people exercising those Rights would help. Yes. Stare Decsis abuse by the Supreme Court has led us to this point.
That some of you just kind shrug your shoulders and go on about your merry lives makes me sick.
What the hell is wrong with you people? Can't you read plain English? The very document that is our Governments contract to do only certain things, and no more, is being ignored... and more than a few or you are using their arguments for MORE power against yourselves. You surrender 3/4's of the argument before ever getting near a solution.
Immoral. Idiotic. Pacifistic. Trolling for a flame war. Or worse, some of you people may be playing the Judas to suck up to your political masters.
People like me free countries from tyrannies and Kings. People like some of you arguing away your natural Rights are those who think Kings and tyrants only kill some people and that isn't so bad. :banghead:
That some of you just kind shrug your shoulders and go on about your merry lives makes me sick.
What the hell is wrong with you people? Can't you read plain English? The very document that is our Governments contract to do only certain things, and no more, is being ignored... and more than a few or you are using their arguments for MORE power against yourselves. You surrender 3/4's of the argument before ever getting near a solution.Immoral. Idiotic. Pacifistic. Trolling for a flame war. Or worse, some of you people may be playing the Judas to suck up to your political masters.
People like me free countries from tyrannies and Kings. People like some of you arguing away your natural Rights are those who think Kings and tyrants only kill some people and that isn't so bad. :banghead:
Rev. DeadCorpse
Member
About what level of discourse I expected.
I knew what it was before I ever posted on this thread. As for the second questions, No.
Where did I say that I didn't want my rights back or that I never wanted rights? As for what the founders intended in regards to the BOR, they intended that it only apply to the federal government. They also believed it was up to the states and the people to acknowledge and preserve their rights.
cuchulainn
Member
No one is doing that. Everyone here is on the same side, with similar goals.
The problem is that you've missed the point, which is to operate from the way things are, not the way they ought to be.
Pointing out the undeniable fact that rights have always -- ALWAYS -- been subject to infringement under the U.S. legal system does not necessarily mean we like it, want it or agree with it.
The Rabbi has been a bit curt and cute in making his point. His subtlty has been lost on the hotheads. I don't particularly like The Rabbi's style for this reason, but at least I get his point.
Yep, it probably should be closed.
Hey folks, I don't entirely agree with everything The Rabbi says either, but the hyperbole and invective against him is absurd. You’re embarrassing yourselves and revealing your inability to get subtle prodding.
Rev. DeadCorpse
Member
No. I reject the point. There is a difference. I've also got history and objective reality on my side of the fence. I have no illusions about how things are. Unlike some of the posters on this thread, I also have no illusions about how things will continue to be if we don't change our attitude.
The minute you start thinking your Rights are alienable and fungible, you give up half the argument. No thanks. That hasn't worked so well the last 70 years. Would you compromise and allow yourself to be only half-dead? Then why compromise and be content with being only half a slave?
Right are alienable. That has been shown many times on this thread.
Have you actually looked up the word "fungible"?
You seem to have this idea that if you just scream "its my right!" loudly and obnoxiously enough then you'll get it. It doesnt work that way. It isnt obvious to people on this thread, all of whom are pro-gun, that rights are inalienable and absolute. It sure isnt obvious to the people outside this forum.
Rev. DeadCorpse
Member
That is my point. ONLY if we let them be. It is also demonstrably NOT what this country was founded on. Nor is it the ideal for the human condition. Nor do societies that fail to respect individual Rights last very long.
If this isn't "obvious" to all of you, then this isn't the web forum I thought it was either. Especially if some of you would just rather lick the hand that feeds you rather than stand up for what should be yours without having to ask.
Detestable.
And yes, "fungible" works as it denotes being traded away. Of course, if you can't use a dictionary it is no wonder you haven't a clue about anything else.
- Status