Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
U.S. vs. Heller was a ruling founded on a basic understanding of the English language and history that most of us here have understood for years. The ruling may very well have some practical benefits to edging out some governmental interference in our right to effective self-defense. It is, however, only the first step on a very long road to a better understanding of the nature of human rights. And we had better not stumble on this long road by having flawed first principles. The right to effective self-defense is a basic human right. It is not dependent upon any document, or the goodwill of any man or group of men. The most the Supreme Court can do is help prevent other people from infringing our already extant human right.
Without a sound theory of the nature of rights, trying to preserve their free exercise in the face of ignorant men is mere fumbling in the dark.
That is why I am taking this opportunity to point out a subtle but deadly flaw in the reasoning of the Supreme Court, on the parts of both the majority and minority.
Both sides propose the idea of a "reasonable restriction" on a right. There is no such thing.
Is it a "reasonable restriction" on your freedom of speech to have a law that punishes those who falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater? No! You have absolutely no right to put others in un-necessary risk because of people panicking and stampeding. Yet the justices, and also the majority of people, think this is a "restriction on a right."
Is it a "reasonable restriction" on freedom of speech to require someone to get a permit before staging a march down the middle of a street? No! You have no right to prohibit people's movement by disrupting transportation, without there being forewarning and accomodations.
Is it a "reasonable restriction" to have a law that punishes a man who makes the threat, "I'm going to kill you?" No! Because no one has the right to threaten to initiate violence against any other man.
There is no such thing as a "reasonable restriction" on any right. You either have the right to do something, or you do not. You either have an unalienable right based on your human nature, or you have some privilege allowed you by some man or group of men. There is no, "You have a right, but not really, because there are conditions on exercising the right, therefore making it a privilege."
You have the right to defend yourself with the best means in existence, period. The fact that some law infringes or prohibits the exercise of your right does not change the fact that you have that right! If someone takes my money by violence, I still have a right to my money, even if he has superior force and I will practically never get it back.
We now have people here, and in the judicial system, who compare your peacable carrying of a firearm with someone screaming "fire" in a crowded theater. They think the act of your carrying a firearm is in and of itself a danger to others, and that a law regulating who may peacably carry is somehow a "reasonable restriction" on your right to peacably carry a firearm. Foolishness.
I say again: there is no "reasonable restriction" on a right. Either an act is a right, or it is not. Any "restriction" on an actual right is known as an infringement, an unjust restriction of the exercise of one's right: not the eradication or alteration of one's right in itself.
Until the vast majority of men recognize these important realities, we are in grave danger from ourselves. It has always been this way, and always will be until the end of time. But we can, at least, minimize the damage and deaths that are the result caused by flawed thinking on such fundamental issues.
Remember: your rights do not come from, and are not dependent on any document, man, or group of men. They come from God, and if you don't believe in God, realize that they are intrinsic to your human nature . . . (which was created by God.) Man cannot justly destroy what God has given.
-Sans Authoritas
Without a sound theory of the nature of rights, trying to preserve their free exercise in the face of ignorant men is mere fumbling in the dark.
That is why I am taking this opportunity to point out a subtle but deadly flaw in the reasoning of the Supreme Court, on the parts of both the majority and minority.
Both sides propose the idea of a "reasonable restriction" on a right. There is no such thing.
Is it a "reasonable restriction" on your freedom of speech to have a law that punishes those who falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater? No! You have absolutely no right to put others in un-necessary risk because of people panicking and stampeding. Yet the justices, and also the majority of people, think this is a "restriction on a right."
Is it a "reasonable restriction" on freedom of speech to require someone to get a permit before staging a march down the middle of a street? No! You have no right to prohibit people's movement by disrupting transportation, without there being forewarning and accomodations.
Is it a "reasonable restriction" to have a law that punishes a man who makes the threat, "I'm going to kill you?" No! Because no one has the right to threaten to initiate violence against any other man.
There is no such thing as a "reasonable restriction" on any right. You either have the right to do something, or you do not. You either have an unalienable right based on your human nature, or you have some privilege allowed you by some man or group of men. There is no, "You have a right, but not really, because there are conditions on exercising the right, therefore making it a privilege."
You have the right to defend yourself with the best means in existence, period. The fact that some law infringes or prohibits the exercise of your right does not change the fact that you have that right! If someone takes my money by violence, I still have a right to my money, even if he has superior force and I will practically never get it back.
We now have people here, and in the judicial system, who compare your peacable carrying of a firearm with someone screaming "fire" in a crowded theater. They think the act of your carrying a firearm is in and of itself a danger to others, and that a law regulating who may peacably carry is somehow a "reasonable restriction" on your right to peacably carry a firearm. Foolishness.
I say again: there is no "reasonable restriction" on a right. Either an act is a right, or it is not. Any "restriction" on an actual right is known as an infringement, an unjust restriction of the exercise of one's right: not the eradication or alteration of one's right in itself.
Until the vast majority of men recognize these important realities, we are in grave danger from ourselves. It has always been this way, and always will be until the end of time. But we can, at least, minimize the damage and deaths that are the result caused by flawed thinking on such fundamental issues.
Remember: your rights do not come from, and are not dependent on any document, man, or group of men. They come from God, and if you don't believe in God, realize that they are intrinsic to your human nature . . . (which was created by God.) Man cannot justly destroy what God has given.
-Sans Authoritas
