"Ordered Liberty" and RKBA

[JellyJar]

To me for Ordered Liberty to exists in a society there must be the proper respect for human life, especially innocent human life. As I say in one of my signatures,

The great purpose of Law is to preserve and protect the innocent.

I also believe that there exists natural limits to governmental authority; there are some things no government can do and some things no government has the legal or moral authority to do.

Given these natural limits to governmental authority it follows that no government, however constituted, can guarantee the safety and security of its citizens form assault by violent criminals. Therefore, where the government's ability to defend us from crime leaves off our right, indeed our duty, to protect ourselves takes up.

In most instances, in order to protect ourselves from assault by violent criminals it is necessary, for we the people, to possess, in private and most public places, those weapons that are reasonably useful for self defense.

Also, as history and current events prove, the very government that we have created over us for our mutual protection is itself the greatest threat to our lives and liberties. As someone once wrote we Americans have three ways to seek justice from out government; First by the ballot box, next by the brief, and if all else fails by the bullet.

I believe that we the people have the basic unalienable right to keep and bears arms for defense of our selves, our families, out country and if necessary to defend ourselves against home grown tyranny and that the right to keep and bear those weapons reasonably useful for these causes is an inherent part of Ordered Liberty.

 

[armoredman]

I find the phrase "ordered liberty" to be repugnant. The seesaw war will be over how much "order" can "liberty" stand.

This is what I believe,




The base purpose of law is to promote and extend the power of the goverment over the governed. These laws were enacted for many reasons, some good, some poor, some repugnant, but all for one reason, to extend power. Many have very beneficial effects, some neutral, some adverse, yet they all serve the same base purpose - to extend power over the governed. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as this is theoretically a government with the informed consent of the governed. Therefore, theoretically, we can remove those who wish to extend governmental power into areas proscribed by the Constitution, yet, as we see time and time again, the reality falls far short of the ideal.

Therefore I find the concept of "ordered liberty" to be something Orwellian, base and cold, an ideal where the government abrogates their responsibilities and Constitutional safeguards, to limit the liberties and freedoms of the governed, to "order" their "liberties". I certainly hope what I am seeing is the pendulum swinging back towards individual liberties and rights being recognized again, and I hope we can nail the thing to that side.

My $.02, worth probably less than half of what you paid for it.

 

[JellyJar]

armoredman

In all due respect you don't understand the concept of "Ordered Liberty". Ordered Liberty means you have the right of free speech but you do not have the right to yell fire in a theater. You have freedom of religion but you do not have the right to commit human sacrifice. Ordered Liberty means you have the right to exercise certain basic human rights as long as you do not unreasonably infringe upon the rights of others.

There will always be some give and take as to how far a certain right can be taken. If we try to insist on an all or nothing approach to any right, especially the RKBA, then we will probably end with nothing.

No matter what the Constitution may or may not say about the RKBA, in the end we must gather the support of a big enough majority of the people of this country to prevail.

The reality of life in a democratic society is that if enough of the people want something then they will get it. Doesn't matter if what they want is legal or not, right or not, good or not. Even the courts, which are supposed to decide cases based solely on the law and the facts, nothing else, will side with the majority if the majority is big enough.

 

[General Geoff]

Ordered Liberty means you have the right of free speech but you do not have the right to yell fire in a theater.

You most certainly do have that right; you also own your words, and are responsible for the upheaval caused by them. Rights cannot exist without corresponding responsibility.

The reality of life in a democratic society is that if enough of the people want something then they will get it.

Good thing we don't live in a democracy.

 

[armoredman]

No matter what the Constitution may or may not say about the RKBA, in the end we must gather the support of a big enough majority of the people of this country to prevail

Thank you for your response, may I point out this is not a democracy? The United States government is a republic, not a democracy, where 51% of anyone can change anything. That is mob rule.
Perhaps your concept of "ordered liberty" is correct to your definition, but as I stated the very term "ordered liberty" gives me the crawls, as it seems quite orwellian. How much order?

but you do not have the right to yell fire in a theater

If the theater is on fire, should I shout, "Incineration!"?

No matter what the Constitution may or may not say about the RKBA,

Gotta go back to this one again. The Supreme Law of the Land is what it means, period, end of line. The 'living document" arguments aside, there is a procedure used to lawfully change the Constitution, which has been used several times. Until it is amended it means what it says, in my oh so simple non legal mind. Lawyers may be laughing thier crooked little heads off at me now, but that's OK.

 

[Art Eatman]

Enough political philosophy for one morning...