Rights don't have reasons

[mhdishere]

I was thinking about this earlier, about how we justify our RKBA by saying it's for self defense, or protection from the government, or recreation, etc. I have trouble agreeing with this because rights don't have, or need, a reason.

Let's take the First Amendment as an example, I have the right to free speech (among other rights enumerated by that amendment). It doesn't matter what purpose I use that right for, I can use it to write a letter to the editor complaining about the government or I can use it to buy a comic book. If we start saying we have that right because it allows us to criticize the government we're limiting the right to that particular function. If the function of criticizing the government could be performed while at the same time eliminating my personal right to free speech the function would be preserved.

This is the argument of the antis: we don't need to own weapons ourselves because we have other people who will protect us (from criminals, from the government, or whatever). We then argue the ineffectiveness of the police for protecting us which concedes the point to the antis, that if somehow the police WERE capable of protecting us we'd have no need for personal weapons. The right doesn't just exist to perform a function, it exists on its own, as a right.

No one asks me why I own a leather jacket, or a sports car, or model trains. They don't try to convince me that I'd be just as warm in a nylon jacket, that I could get where I'm going in an economy car, that I could relax some other way than model trains. But people ask me why I own guns, as if I have to justify that ownership. I own them because I want to own them, I don't need any other reason and as long as I don't do anything illegal with them no one has the right to take them away from me.

Does this make sense?

 

[JL2152]

It all makes sense to me. All you really need to say when they ask the reason you have a gun the best response is that its your right.

 

[Desert Dog]

My standard response to the comments "you don't need guns", "why do you need an assault weapon... no one needs them"...

I reply with, "you are right." Which usually gets dumb looks especially if they are very liberal.

So, I ask them "why do you need that huge SUV or that sports car? Nobody needs those... You should drive a small economy car..."

At that point I usually get sputtering and backtracking.

Then I end it with: "It is my RIGHT, not my need to have my guns, just like it is your RIGHT to drive a monster SUV or 180MPH sports car... am I right?"

At that point they usually walk off mumbling...

 

[R.H. Lee]

Well, then, we don't need freedom of speech, because we have the media, and we don't need freedom of religion because we have pastors, ministers, etc. Makes sense to me.

 

[Black Snowman]

Darn skippy! (preferred explitives substituted by acceptable ones )

 

[John Hicks]

I mentioned this in another thread today regarding the politics of "need". Anytime someone says you don't "need" something and then tries to legislate or regulate it, be wary. The very notion that you "need" something before you can do/get it goes against all forms of civil liberties.

I usually apply this to the same things you mentioned: sports car, guns, and in my case woodworking (as opposed to model trains).

My diatribe to friends and family is called "The Politics of Need" and one day I should type it out. Sadly it's all common sense stuff, but the oblivious or liberal never seem to get it.

I guess they don't "need" civil liberties

jh

 

[Vermont Guy]

Not that you are ever going to be able to put the case before an anti but the right to arms is a derived right.

You have a right to life. That comes from your creator and it is assumed or "self evident". This right to life is part of what is meant by to be human.

From that derives your right to defend that life.

Finally, you derive the right to the tools for effective defense of that right.

If you just wave your arms and proclaim you "have a right" how is that different from the anti's that have discovered a right to live in a gun free environment?

Conversely, if you show the derivation of the right to arms then the anti has to refute that people have a right to life. You can't argue against that because that was your initial assumption, accepted without proof. But if people do not have a right to life then we have to rethink the meaning of that whole Holocaust thing.

 

[MP5]

"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...."

 

[Standing Wolf]

No one asks me why I own a leather jacket, or a sports car, or model trains. They don't try to convince me that I'd be just as warm in a nylon jacket, that I could get where I'm going in an economy car, that I could relax some other way than model trains.

There are plenty of leftist extremist wannabe Hitlers who'd be glad to deprive you of your right to wear a jacket made from animal skin, and plenty more who'd be glad to deprive you of your right to buy the car of your choice. Lots of wannabe Hitlers tend to specialize in prohibitive causes; virtually all, however, share a common commitment to leftist extremism.