Second Amendment discussion (kinda long)

[freewheeling]

Graystar:

I don't. I never said or have ever thought that I abused the concept of a "right."

Sorry, hard to keep track of people when you don't have faces to go on.

It is extremely important to use the correct term. Do not confuse rights with powers that have been delegated. Powers are delegated by law. Our fundamental rights are not created by law. They simply exist.

Rights seem to come into being as a result of human interacttion, so it's a bit more complicated than that. Whether or not such rights are transcendent, or they're simply a function of how best we humans can cooperate or form contracts, is a matter for deep philisophy, or perhaps religion. If by "power" you mean "authority" then I agree. It's just that power doesn't always mean authority. Sometimes it means sheer capacity or ability, etc.

I guess I have no problem with "delegated" as long as we specify that some of these functions can't be performed by individuals, so it's hard to see how they could delegate a "power" they not only don't have as individuals, but can't possibly possess. It's more appropriate to say that the authority derives from the constitution of the group by the individuals who constitute it, and sometimes tracing that to either indivdiuals or the group is well nigh impossible. It emerges through some kind of synergy, that's a lot easier to see than to define.

Because we have a right to a jury trial, the law defines the jury system, imposes the obligation, and delegates the power of determining guilt to the jury. It is the same with any group that has a power, such as localities and even school boards. That is the nature of delegated powers. *Someone* has to hold the delegated power. That someone is defined in law. At no time is the holding of such power considered a right.

Who gives "the law" the authority to do that, or inspires people to carry it out? Some authority (power) is definitely delegated (from higher courts to lower, from the state to localities, from the Constitution to the branches of government, and from some abstract aggregate entity called "the people" to the Constitution). But some authority seems to simply come from "right principle" itself (as you and others point out by saying that it simpy "exists"). And somehow, in that process, the two become one (right principle, and human commitment) to become "sovereignty" which is a mix of freedom and obligation that's more than either. And ultimately sovereignty (at least some portion of it) is shared. It belongs neither solely to individuals nor solely to the group, because neither would exist in quite the same way without the agreement that establishes (constitutes) it. I think this is what Montesque was all about (the dirty Frenchman). It's what makes Constitutional government possible, and what makes the powers shared by the branches of government work (more or less imperfectly, to be sure).

There may also be situations (quite frequent sometimes) in which individuals in the constituted state don't see the benefits of their arrangement, any more than Ullyses saw the benefit of his restraints when, tied to the mast by the order he himself had given his sailors, he wanted desperately to reneg in order to follow the sirens. So there is clearly a lot of legitimacy to the notion of "delegated authority," although that doesn't mean that the delegation can be lightly or conveniently withdrawn or rescinded. If it were, there'd be no point in the Constitution in the first place. And that's why writing a Constitution for a new state is so difficult and contentious, as we're finding in Iraq.

 

[muzzleloader]

"To bear" and other simple thoughts on my part

First, just to let everyone know that cares to know: I have been a life member of the NRA since the age of 18. I ma now considerably older than that and alomost feel like I'm taking advantage of htat fine organization by continuing to take the magazine without apparently paying for it

Additionally, I am a believer in the ENTIRE constitution and was sworn many years ago to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. As a military retiree, I am still bound by that "swearing" and am glad of it. For, no matter how you cut it, as a permament member of the "militia," by anyone's definition of that term, I qualify to keep and bear arms for the rest of my life. I wonder if anyone has ever broached THAT argument before. I will, if it ever comes to me losing my "rights."

My take on "to bear" has more to do with reading than anything else. Dissertations just tend to confuse what should be a straightforward and common sense discourse. In my readings of early documents, I never saw the term "to bear" associated withe large ordinance, such as cannon (the nuke of their time). It was, as far as I could see, only associated with things that could actually be carried. Obviously, a bazooka would now qualify, but I think we are confusing some things here when we muddy the waters with arguments concerning arms that have always been controlled. I'm not saying that there are no private owners of same, such as Mr. Dillon out here in AZ, becasue that is oviously wrong. However, he has special, limiting and hard to get permits to possess that armament. I don't believe there has ever been any argument about the control of large weaponry, such as cannon and its ilk.

Additionally, since the argument has never been "cannon control," it is "gun control," I think it does us a massive disservice to bring those weapons into the argument. Doing so only makes us look very strange, indeed, to the non-gun-owning public. You and I know that shooting heavy ordinance is a blast, no pun intended, but the general public, even some gun owners, don't understand and don't want to understand the "joy of cannon," so to speak. On the other hand, I very much do understand and fully support the "enough is enough" and "no more giving in" arguments. We've had enough of our rights eroded by the political elite and their willing/eager lap-dogs. We don't even WANT to give the appearance of giving in to yet another minor erosion.

BUT, and I must say this, we need to tune the rhetoric to the item at hand. I really don't care that the government doesn't want me to have a nuke and requires me to jump hoops to even see one. What "I" care about is my ability to defend myself, my family and my friends. "I" care about the shrinking opportunities to do things that, it appears, my DNA wants me to do...... hunt! "I" care about my ability to recreate with an instrument of my choice, guns specifically. I have always enjoyed target shooting and recomment it highly to anyone as a superb way to relax. Those are basically what "I" care about and I believe in my deepest being, the founders did too and they wanted that to a permanent right for all of us. Yes, the obvious advantage to the "state" would be a pool of trained individuals whose only training requirement would be things specifically martial, but NOT shooting.

As one who has had to train young troops in marksmanship and weapon safety, I can tell you first hand that the level of knowledge of those going into the military is low and getting lower every day. These are not stupid or unmotivated people. They have been trained by the gun-control advocates that owning a gun somehow makes you a criminal (if in appearance only). Thus, you and I must have the government spend MILLIONS for ammunition and training to get these folks up to the marksmanship level that would be called "competent." Not "great," mind you, just passibly competent. According to fairly recent historical reference (military) this was NOT the issue back in the days of WWI or WWII. Sgt York, as a recruit, is basically a thing of the past and we still NEED him! Our nation is doing its potential warfighting youth a HUGE disservice by limiting their training to the time spent in boot camp and basic marksmanship schools. I think the public, at large, would do well to consider that fact. The less their sons and daughters know about marksmanship, the more likely they are to arrive home in a body bag....... and anyone can understand the reasoning behind that. Try my best, and I was considerded one of the best at this, my training of a typical New York youth in firearms, both marksmanship and safe handling, was nowhere near as effective as it was when I was dealing with a youngster from "hunting country." With those individuals, I could spend my time teaching much more advanced techniques and familiarizing them with more of the nuances assciated with their particular weapon.

So what has this got to do with my rant, here? I put forth the proposition that the "militia" argument is NOT passe or obsolete. It is quite the opposite. It is as important today as it was when the founders said it. It's "character" may have changed a bit, but the logic of their reference to a "militia" still stands the test of time and it now DOES, in fact, apply to ALL folks no matter their sex or land ownership status.. Women are present in combat roles and require that early life training as much as I ever did. Alot of soldiers hail from "apartment living" parentage (thus the land ownership reference).

So, there it is. I would want us to let people know that the militia is still an appropriate term, it includes eveyone that is a citizen here. "I" would like to see us, as responsible gun owners, limit our discussions to gun control nonsense and avoid, in general, the references to large ordinance........ just my opinion, of course

 

[Graystar]

Rights seem to come into being as a result of human interacttion, so it's a bit more complicated than that.

It is not more complicated than that. Human interaction is the time when human rights are respected, not created. An individual human always possesses his rights. Just don’t expect a lion or bear to respect those rights.

I guess I have no problem with "delegated" as long as we specify that some of these functions can't be performed by individuals, so it's hard to see how they could delegate a "power" they not only don't have as individuals, but can't possibly possess.

I think you’re philosophizing concepts that have already been defined and decided.

The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The government can only do what the people allow it to do…not the other way around. So your question…

Who gives "the law" the authority to do that, or inspires people to carry it out?

…doesn’t make sense. The law has always represented the powers delegated by the people, through their representatives, to the government. The people retain powers not delegated, and they retained these powers as individuals. There is no non-delegated power that can only be exercised by groups and not individuals.

 

[freewheeling]

It is not more complicated than that. Human interaction is the time when human rights are respected, not created. An individual human always possesses his rights. Just don’t expect a lion or bear to respect those rights.

Perhaps it's a matter of larguage or something. The rights are always in relation to other himans though, and it seems rather silly to talk of our "rights" with regard to large carnivores. It isn't that bear don't respect our rights. It's that there is no such thing. You have a "right," if you want to call it that, to battle the bear for your survival and he has a "right" to take your life for his. No other humans, no rights. I'll go even further and say that rights really only emerge when interactions with other humans become frequent, rather than occasional. As long as Friday and Crusoe exist on the island but rarely encounter one another and can easily avoid an encounter they have no need or requirement to work out agreements about rights that allow them to co-exist. Prior to that, when it's man against nature and other men are merely part of nature, rights don't emerge. Nor are they even considered.

I'm prepared to say that there are principles which humans discover through their interactions the recognition of which allow effective human cooperation of the sort that is now capable of dominating the world. And that is a fairly decent test of wisdom if not justice. Whether you call this "justice" in the higher sense, or simply wisdom, isn't worth spending the next several hours delineating, and it might be better to discuss it over a drink or dinner anyway. This typing just isn't that much fun.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The government can only do what the people allow it to do…not the other way around. So your question…

Well, the second statement is more than a stairghtforward interpretation of the first. Once the powers have been "delegated" they can't simply be snatched back, so at that point it is the state that "allows" by virtue of that delegated and constituted authority. It's tricky because there is a contractual exchange of authority that isn't reversible, whicth is why Ullyses on the mast is an approprate image. (And why it's the image used on the Public Choice Journal, btw.) That's the point of a constitutional process. We took a step, but it's something of a fantasy to maintain that we can simply step back. And I say this recognizing that if we are ever dominated by a totalitarian state I'll be fighting alongside you against it. (Though I don't think it's very likely unless we foolishly provide a totalitarian movement with the fruit of our utterly world-beating skill and productivity.)

The law has always represented the powers delegated by the people, through their representatives, to the government. The people retain powers not delegated, and they retained these powers as individuals. There is no non-delegated power that can only be exercised by groups and not individuals.

How does this relate to your legal right to have an RPG, or a nuke? (And neither of which would even exist without the complex society required to produce them.) I mean, we could argue the theory all day I suppose but I'm not sure it bears on the topic at hand. If your argument is that the above entitles the citizens to equality in armament then I definitely don't agree. But if you're not saying that, I'm not sure there's enough distance between our positions that it's useful to close the gap. I suspect, however, that we would be able to close the gap without enormous disagreement since we're both clever fellows with valiant hearts.

Anyway, the UPS just delivered my Kadet Kit for my CZ 75B so I'm retiring from the conversation for awhile, to play. Nice talking with you Graystar.

 

[Graystar]

Perhaps it's a matter of larguage or something.

Well as long as we agree that we have rights, at least within a society of humans, I guess that’s all that really matters.

Once the powers have been "delegated" they can't simply be snatched back

Sure they can. Laws are repealed all the time. A great example is Prohibition. The 18th Amendment was overturned directly by the people by convention.

How does this relate to your legal right to have an RPG, or a nuke?

Well, I’ll start by reiterating what I said of that issue earlier…

As to the question of what weapons we can possess, the answer is simple. Weapons in support of the Second Amendment are set through legislation (just like jury duty and subpoenas are set through law.) Weapons in support of our right to possess firearms for personal protection are to be determined on a case-by-case basis (as is all questions of rights) with suitability-to-task and danger posed to others probably being the most likely determining factors. By that measure we cannot possess nuclear bombs or tanks or grenades.

As far as I know every states prohibits the possession of explosives. However, if these laws didn’t exist then a person could possess a nuclear weapon. But I do not believe we can possess such weapons as a matter of right.

UPS just delivered my Kadet Kit for my CZ 75B

oooooohhh

 

[MicroBalrog]

with suitability-to-task and danger posed to others probably being the most likely determining factors. By that measure we cannot possess nuclear bombs or tanks or grenades.

Actually, WHY no tanks and grenades?

Conventional weapons are different from nukes. You COULD use a tank or a grenade or an RPG without harming innocents, but not so with nukes.

So you do have a right to own an RPG-7, but not a nuke.

 

[Graystar]

You COULD use a tank or a grenade or an RPG without harming innocents, but not so with nukes.

You COULD use a nuke without harming innocents. It's just a question of proximity. If you miss with an RPG, you can hit a building and collapse it; killing everyone inside. Once you factor in such a possibility, along with the extremely limited chance of getting an RPG shot off before being rushed or shot, and along with the fact that if you hit a person at close range you'll probably be injured from the blast, I'd would say that the dangers of the weapon exceed the benefit, and as such you don't have a right to possess it for personal self-defense.

But that would be for a judge to decide.

 

[MicroBalrog]

You COULD use a nuke without harming innocents

Not actually true. Fallout is lethal. According to Saharov, the father of the Soviet thermonuclear bomb, every nuclear explosion causes cancer to someone out there.

 

[freewheeling]

Conventional weapons are different from nukes. You COULD use a tank or a grenade or an RPG without harming innocents, but not so with nukes.

Well my understanding of the principle is that you can't normally aim the weapon at an individual without running significant risk of hitting people not intentionally targetted. It is, admittedly, not a perfect standard. If it arises in court you can bet that some will raise the issue of penetration with high caliber rounds, their use in crowded conditions, etc. But there's usually a "reasonable man" test to these things. The fact that it's only a "rule of thumb" doesn't mean it's not useful in defining limits. In fact there's no such thing as "metaphysical certitutude" in precision. Ask Werner Heisenberg.