U.S. vs. Heller: the Flawed Logic.

[Picard]

Freedom is not the ability to do whatever one wants. That is a false definition.

You're free to kill someone, right? What would happen as a result? You would go to jail and therefore lose your freedom. It makes no sense that freedom could be lost by exercising it.

Freedom is broad, but it has it's limits, just like we, as humans, have our limits. We cannot do anything that we want or else it would quickly lead to destruction and death.

So this broad, unbounded, infinite freedom cannot ever be realized by us, since we are finite. We can accept that we can never be "free" or we can look at an alternative definition of freedom, one that does not lead to the loss of freedom when exercised. This definition is: freedom is the ability to do what you should do, what you were made to do, the ability to act in accord with your nature.

What happens when you look at freedom in this way? You can never lose it because you are only free to do things that peaceably go well with our conscience. Things that are not in accord with human nature inherently take away from our freedom. It is wrong to believe that the practice of such behavior would be an exercise of human freedom. Like mentioned before, doing things such as killing, which are not in accord with our nature, inherently enslave us.

 

[Pat-inCO]

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[sic] risk because of people panicking and stampeding. Yet the justices, and also the majority of people, think this is a "restriction on a right."

Which side of this do you argue? The first half you say no, then you list reasons for yes. Which side are you on?

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[sic].

Again, which side do you argue? First you say the restriction is unreasonable, then you say it is.

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.

Come on guy! Which side do you argue?

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[sic] 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."

Well, perhaps I see some of where you are going. Are you actually arguing that the laws created by society that document acceptable behavior, to create consistency, are a restriction on our rights?

 

[Igloodude]

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.

I for one am very glad that God gave us the intrinsic right to violate His First (and depending on who you ask, Second) Commandment(s).

 

[geekWithA.45]

Where reason and logic fail to fill the gap in the political realm due to enough people not embracing them, violence is required and more than willing to try to finish the job. And that is a job violence will never finish, but not through a lack of sincere effort.

So, Sans, are you advocating the application of violence onto those who fail to embrace reason and logic in the political realm?

And if not, would you care to clarify just what it is that you ARE trying to convey?

 

[JColdIron]

My problem with "reasonable" is my same problem with the buzz word going around "common sense"

Who gets to decide?

Several Police Chiefs, Mayor Daley and others were on NPR talking about how the Heller decision was going to make it more dangerous for the police to do their job. I disagree, therefore I do not want those individuals defining resonable restriction of the 2nd ammendment or common sense gun laws.

The road is still long

 

[mbt2001]

Sans,

I think what you are saying is a bit of an oversimplification of the issue. Philosophically we are free. I mean I can go up to a cop and kick him in the groin. I was free to do it, however that doesn't make it a good idea. Laws are designed to give you an idea of what behavior is legal and what rights and freedoms you have in regards to the rights and freedoms of others. As St. Augustin said, we have FREEDOM, but we do not have LIBERTY. He was trying to make the distinction between being able to jump on my desk, burn my house down (all of which I am free to do) and the ability to do those things without consequence.

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 do have the right to do whatever you want, but do you have the "right" to do whatever you want without consequece?? That is what you are saying, that your whims and right to them should be canonized in the law, which governs (for the most part) the interaction between people.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Another way to look at it is to distinguish between the power (the raw ability) to do something and the right (the ability to do something without undesirable legal consequences). I have the power to fail to fulfill my contractual obligations; but if I do so, I risk legal action being taken against me (as well as damage to my reputation and self-esteem). I have the power to acquire a gun even if I am legally disqualified from possessing one; but if I do so, I risk prosecution. I have the power to use violence to further my goals; but if I do so, I risk jail.

As mbt2001 points out, you are free to do whatever you want. But every act has its consequences, and some acts may have undesirable legal consequences.

 

[Pilot]

My problem with "reasonable" is my same problem with the buzz word going around "common sense"

Who gets to decide?

Lawyers and Judges who are lawyers who often have a left leaning political and social agenda. I hate when the put the word "reasonable" in any clause as that always means court and lawyers.

 

[Ltlabner]

Short of anarchy, I'm as libertarian as they come, but didactic, ideological libertarian puritanism gets really tedious, really quickly.

No kidding. I got three minutes dumber for reading that.

For all the babbering about Gods laws and no others, it seems to get overlooked that we are commanded to obey men's laws also.

But this is a thread that IMO has zero to do with guns.

 

[Picard]

We can do evil things, but we are not free to.

What limits our freedom? Some will say that reality limits our freedom. Am I free to fly like a bird? No, of course not, realistically a human being cannot be a bird.

I would say that another thing limits our freedom. Our will can also limit our freedom. I can go kick a police officer, but I will not because it would limit my freedom. If we want to be free and continue to do so, we have to control our actions in the confines of our nature, which is dictated by the way that things are (reality). Freedom is not the lack of self control.

 

[dalepres]

Hook, war is only and always engaged in as a means of attaining some kind of peace. Whether the peace is a true peace or a peace of subjugation, it is always violence with the intent to obtain a kind of peace.

Except when war is created as a means of propping up weak governments, as a means of turning the eyes of a population outward instead of inward, or as a means of lining the pockets of those close to the government. All of these exceptions to your statement about the purpose of war have occurred somewhere in the world in the last 100 years. I think war is never about peace but only about the purposes of those starting the war and the self-defense or preservation of those attacked in war.

 

[ProficientRifleman]

I often propose the question...

"Do you have a right to breathe?"

"Really? Do you have an absolute right to breathe? Do you mean to tell me that you enjoy that right f as a matter of nature? Without having to ask anyone's permission FIRST?"

"Really? You mean to tell me that is what a 'right' really is?

Now take a look at that quaint old anachronistic document and tell me again what it says....yes, right there in articles I,II, IV of amendment.

 

[rino451]

Seems that there is some disagreement about what a "right." If I adjust my definition of right, I can see the OP's pov.

ETA, as has been alluded to in previous posts. the ability to do something does not indicate that said "something" is a right.

 

[XDKingslayer]

Sans, what do you feel gives us a right to self defence?

I'm just curious what makes you inparticularly think that.

Would you feel that survival is a right on par with self defence?

 

[BullpupBen]

I disagree with the OP.

Reasonable Restrictions are just that, they are reasonable and necessary to balance freedom with order.
They are the part of running a government which protects your life, liberty, and property which is the most complex because it is up to human judgment what is and what is not "reasonable."

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."

To tell me that not yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater is not a restriction of free speech because you dont have the right to put people in danger is EXCACTLY like saying you dont have a right to shoot someone invading your home because no where in the constitution or in any other legal document do you have a right to kill people.

Every right does, by necessity, have reasonable restrictions, and to use your logic allows anyone (think: antigunners) to deny any fundemental human right on the basis that by exercising you would do something that in itself is not a basic human right.

 

[nplant]

Interesting discussion. I think the OP has merit, but I would hesitate to say that your right to free speech ends with threats. In a purely free state, anyone would be free to say such words, as long as they were prepared to accept the consequences of such an utterance.

Example:
Person 1: "I'm going to kill you."
Person 2: "I'm going to defend myself." (Or, no words, just the act of defense.)

If someone needs your blood/marrow/kidney in order to survive (and no other donors are available), but you're not willing to give it to them, are you hurting that person? Yes, but your right to life is equal to his, unless you decide differently. At the core, this scenario is no different than engaging in combat to protect your life. It's just that the circumstances are more charged and dynamic, and the outcome is not as certain.

At any rate, I agree that a right is, for the most part, an absolute. But how then can you account for felons, ex-convicts, mentally handicapped, insane, or just evil people? Do they have the same rights as you and I? If not, how do we decide who's rights are infringed, and on what premise? If so, how do we propose mitigation of the fact that bad things WILL happen occasionally?

Again, at the core, the true answer is "EVERYONE has the right to arms." The answer to the mitigation question then becomes, as mentioned already, "Might makes right."

These are the fundamental logical struggles that many people have with the question of the right to keep and bear arms. I believe that there must be reasonable restrictions within the context of a civilization, but my definition of reasonable is a very, very narrow one, essentially limited to those who are assured to behave in a way that will harm the public, inmates, and people who can't take responsibility for their own actions (minors and mentally handicapped adults). The sticky wicket is what the government would define as "reasonable." That thought is a scary one.

To me, our system is flawed, and not enough people who should be able to keep and bear arms are actually "allowed" to by our government. Another question: since these rights are inherent in mankind (which I think we're saying), then why is it that residents of one state can't purchase a gun in another? Why can't visitors from the UK, Mexico, or Iran purchase a gun legally in the US? If it's truly a fundamental human right, and the US government recognizes it as such, shouldn't these scenarios be allowed?

I'm beginning to ramble, here, which I try not to do, but I hope that I've brought up some questions to think about.

 

[DragonFire]

The Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry firearms for offensive purposes

Why not? Is hunting offensive or defensive? Is overthrowing a corrupt government BEFORE you're very life is threatened purely defensive?

Does the 2nd Admentment address merely the right of self-defense? In a way it does, because at the time it was written, a firearm was the chief means of self-defense. But as the decision discusses, the right of self-defense is a GIVEN, the 2nd Admendment is about the government's ability to infringe about the best means of self-defense. The 2nd Amendment addresses the ability to own/keep/use firearms (which should be intrepreted to mean more than just guns, ie tazers etc.) The consequences of using the firearm inappropriately are left to the laws that the government can legislate.


Though people want to read into the admendment alot more than what it actually says, mostly to further whatever opinions or agenda they have. It is quite narrow in what is says and what it does.

If there are any absolute rights, rights that have not a single restriction, then I'm not smart enough to think of them. Every one I can could come up with must also be defined with "except if ...", "unless ....",
or "but only ...".

 

[longdayjake]

It seems to me like you are a proponent of natural rights. The only natural rights that our founding fathers mentioned specifically are the right to life, liberty, and property. This was in the Declaration of Independence. The argument was that God granted these rights and only God had the right to take them away. Then they listed reasons and examples that the King had done to violate these natural rights. However, in constructing the government of this country there were times when they had to justify the denial of certain natural rights. The right to life is taken from someone when they murder another. The right to freedom or liberty is taken away when someone harms another in a criminal sense. The right to property is taken away when the use of the property violates other rights. So, the founders were stuck with a problem. Their arguments that natural rights justified the revolution were now in jeopardy because they were then working on restricting these natural rights. How could they limit rights that were supposedly endowed by God? If there were really such natural rights then they indeed could not have limited them. It was determined that people were granted Natural Rights by God but that it was the duty of government to ensure Civil Rights. Civil Rights differ from Natural Rights in that civil rights are granted to citizens of a government whereas Natural Rights are granted by their creator. The purpose of Civil Rights is to protect the Natural Rights of all men. (this depends on who is in power however) It therefore becomes a necessity to limit certain actions that may cause harm or infringe upon other people's rights, civil or natural. Luckily our government has taken the position that the only time a right may be limited is if there are "reasonable restrictions" put on that right. The issue is with who is determining what reasonable really means. Luckily we have a pretty good court right now and I believe that most unreasonable restrictions will be shot down in court. Sadly, it will take hundreds if not thousands of law suits to shoot down many of the unreasonable restrictions. However if you read the entire opinion you will see that Scalia even leaves room for someone to sue the government to stop restricting machineguns. No one is going to read this I am sure, but I cannot just sit here and let someone diss the United States Government without atleast explaining how the founders came up with Reasonable Restrictions.

 

[lysander]

The OP's commentary is not merely an argument of semantics. His point is valid (and appropriate to a discussion of the logic used in Heller...and thus firearms ownership) if one considers his perspective. If we restrict ourselves to identifying concepts concretely, we must assume that A is A and that A can be nothing else other than A. (I hate to sound like I am channeling Rand here).

So, if A is a "right" (ably and simply defined by Eleanor Roosevelt: "a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take away"), then those things we politically, socially and philosophically identify as A...should in fact be A.

The OP is simply pointing out that it is both poor word choice and poor logic to refer to the ownership of firearms by private citizens as a "right", if that "right" is in fact, a privilege. Thus, A is not A, rather A has become, in application, though not by identification, B. I think he is arguing that the court (as it often does) is parading about a privilege in a "right's" clothing.

I don't think this is a small point. As a person who has studied both the law and human communication, I have come to appreciate that what we write and what we say, is likely more important than what we mean. This is because the manner in which we write, or speak, or define concepts, impacts how others perceive those concepts. (that whole encoding/decoding process of communication) the meaning ultimately rests with the person decoding the message...no matter how badly the encoder wants it to work the other way around.

So basically...don't urinate upon me and tell me that it is precipitating...or in other words...don't tell me that I have a "right" if you really mean that I can exercise a privilege subject to the laws of the land. The two concepts, while linked, are not synonymous.

Hook686 said:

I am free to initiate violence.

This is true...but I think the liberal idea of the human condition would question whether or not you are "correct" in initiating that violence. It is my understanding that classical liberalism puts the onus on the actors to refrain from violating the rights of others. Initiating violence puts you in the "wrong." Liberalism relies on the individual's capacity to respect the "equal rights" of others.

 

[yokel]

My problem with "reasonable" is my same problem with the buzz word going around "common sense"

Naturally it makes you cringe!

These weasel words are routinely employed by the gun-haters to "spin" or alter the public perception of the issue.

How about "public safety" and "crime prevention"?

Our adversaries advance their agenda slowly behind a deceptive veil. The goal is to abridge the right to keep and bear arms under the pretext of stopping crime.

 

[Erik]

There are reasonable restrictions, and I pray to see the day that the standard applied to the reasonable restrictions on the 1st Amendment are identical to those applied to the reasonable restrictions on the the Second Amendment.

 

[Maelstrom]

Sans Intelligere?

If you don't mind, I'll do fine without the absolute lawless chaos you appear to advocate.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

geekwitha.45 wrote:

Short of anarchy, I'm as libertarian as they come, but didactic, ideological libertarian puritanism gets really tedious, really quickly.

It leads to loss of perspective, and it's just really doesn't contribute much to advancing the cause of actually usable liberty.

Sans Authoritas wrote:

Where reason and logic fail to fill the gap in the political realm due to enough people not embracing them, violence is required and more than willing to try to finish the job. And that is a job violence will never finish, but not through a lack of sincere effort.

geekwitha.45 wrote:

So, Sans, are you advocating the application of violence onto those who fail to embrace reason and logic in the political realm?

And if not, would you care to clarify just what it is that you ARE trying to convey?

No, Geekwitha.45, that is precisely not what I am advocating. It is sad to see my intents and words so horribly misunderstood and mangled (though not maliciously) by people's pre-existent perceptions of what I am saying, and very difficult to undo years of already thoughts and fixed patterns of thinking.

Violence is what your words, whether or not you recognized or meant it, advocated.

How? You appear to be more concerned with the practical aspects of men interacting with each other. Men all share the same human nature. How we perceive this nature (in other words, whether we perceive this nature accurately or not,) is of paramount importance. When it comes to human nature and the interactions of men who share the same human nature, the practical is meaningless unless it is directed by a proper theory. In particular, the theory of what it is to be human. If, as you appear to propose, the practical outweighs the theoretical, then violence is king. The atheist Soviets believed that men are nothing but clumps of matter with phenomenally malleable tendencies, and as a result, they acted accordingly.

Men are not mere clumps of matter, to be manipulated by other clumps of matter. Human nature is unchangeable by men. We are designed to act in a particular way. Part of that "particular way" is to conduct ourselves according to reason, and also to seek to do what is good. Part of being human is that no man may justly initiate violence against other men.

Let us consider the world as a child's play workbench: the kind with differently-shaped pegs and holes. Let us say that human action is a square peg. Let us say that human nature is one of the holes. Human action will only properly fit into one kind of hole. The proper, real hole into which it was designed to fit. Human action is supposed to be guided by human nature. Have you not seen a child with a hammer violently try to drive in a square peg into a round hole, because he believes that is the hole that the peg should fit into? If men do not live according to the reality of human nature, and instead try to live by what they want or falsely perceive human nature to be, they will require violence to try to get human action to fit into their preconceived notion of what human nature should be.

I am espousing the idea that human actions should be driven by sound reasoning. I am espousing the idea that no man may initiate violence against any other man, to try to get him to fit into his idea of what human nature is. One may only reasonably use violence to defend his life and property from those who initiate violence against him. A convicted felon carrying a firearm is not in itself an initiation of violence. A felon threatening or shooting someone is an initiation of violence.

I have no right to force other people who do not pose an immediate and grave threat to do anything. I have no right to initiate violence against other men. Do you think you have that right? Yes, you do.

That is a pretty heavy claim, isn't it? Do you want me to prove it? You believe that voting is moral. Electing people into a coercively-funded government is nothing else but forcing other people to subsidize the policies you would like to see emplaced with money collected through violence or the threat of violence.

Those who perceive human nature, in part, as men not having a right to initiate violence have no need of violence except in self-defense. Everyone else requires a good degree of force to try to implement their policies. They must use violence to hammer the square peg of what human nature really is into the round hole that is their dangerously flawed perception of what human nature is.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Sans Authoritas]

For the others, who for the most part still misunderstand the nature of a right:

"Freedom" or "a right" is not the same as "power," or "physical and spiritual ability." I have the power to perform many horrible acts. I do not have the right to perform any horrible acts.

Do you see the difference? These are not semantic fungames I'm playing. These are the foundational principles of human action. Nobody acts for the mere sake of acting: humans act with guidelines. Nobody is playing any game without playing by rules. Key among the rules of human nature is no man may initiate violence against any other man. We can pass laws against the initation of violence. But do any of you really consider the act of carrying a firearm without a permit "an initiation of violence?"

-Sans Authoritas

 

[yokel]

This gets down to the real issue: are we moral adults, or are we moral children? If we are adults, then we have the capacity to control our will even in the face of passion, and to be responsible for the exercise of our natural rights. If we are only children, then all the particularly "dangerous" toys must be controlled by the government.