Where do you draw the line?

[Gil223]

So now you are claiming an afordability aspect to the 2nd amendment -- but it does not say "arms the avg joe" can afford"....does it?

No, it doesn't, but if you can't afford (in the strictest sense of the word) something, you cannot own it either. Theft and fraud are not qualities that bestow "ownership", just possession. Pax...

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The fundamental right is the right of self-defense, not the RKBA. The RKBA comes solely from the 2A and State analogs. Therefore, the history and the meaning of the 2A is significant to the enumerated Right, not so much the GGONIYP Right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

RKBA is a fundamental right like speech. It preexisted the constitution.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Regardless of whether or not the bill of rights enumerates the right to keep weapons other than ones that can be carried and used personally, I still believe it is a right and I believe that our 'founding fathers' would agree. I don't have cites or access to a computer, nor the time at the moment to find cites with tomorrow being a work day, but its my understanding that this issue - that people would lock onto the bill of rights as the holy grail of rights protection and lose consideration for many rights not enumerated - was a major debate point when considering the adoption of a bill of rights in the first place. Those that argued for it essentially believed that there would be no way that people could fall into a trap of believing that unless an act or state of being is constituinally protected that it isn't the right of an individual to take that action or remain in that state of being.

Furthermore, exclusive monopoly to certain weapons by federally authorized armed forces didn't happen until much after our founding fathers time. As it's been pointed out, that doesn't mean their position failed to consider the existence of more destructive weaponry. They all knew about powerful war machines capable of mass devastation. Catapults, trubechetes, cannons and rockets all come to mind. Do you think civilians did not personally own cannons and maintain possession of them in their homes? Cause, they did.

Yep. They argued that if they enumerated or listed some rights the government would argue that anything not listed wasn't a right, and we see that now when people argue about "privileges".

 

[eye95]

RKBA is a fundamental right like speech. It preexisted the constitution.

I disagree. The fundamental right is one of self-defense. That right implies the RKBA, but does not demand any specific RKBA. The RKBA, as it exists here, is the specific one enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I disagree. The fundamental right is one of self-defense. That right implies the RKBA, but does not demand any specific RKBA. The RKBA, as it exists here, is the specific one enumerated in the Constitution.

In the past few weeks I've found myself agreeing with more and more of your posts, but this one I must respectfully disagree with.

The right to keep and bear arms is not derivative of the right to self defense, even though it could be said that the RKBA was enumerated to help ensure the liberty of self defense. The rights to self defense and the right to keep and bear arms certainly compliment each other very well, but I believe that they come from separate branches of the liberty tree, independent of each other, if you will... There are a lot of liberties that are hard to implement and protect without the the implementation and protection of other corresponding liberties, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are derivative of each other.

To say it's derivative of the right to self defense, I believe, is a misconception that lends itself to the anti-gun crowd, because it creates a false impression that the right to ownership and possession of firearms is linked to or founded upon the utility and practicality of it. It gives people the impression that if guns weren't "needed," there would no longer be a "right" to carry them, and so it gives the anti-gun crowd an attack vector. They can trample the rights of others by trying to diminish the legitimacy of the claim that firearm ownership and possession is necessary for self-defense. Therefore we end up on a road of trying to prove the utility and need for it as opposed to defending the simple position that intervention is unwarranted and unjustified. The burden of justification should be on those demanding the intervention.

 

[eye95]

The history of the RKBA says otherwise. It grows out of the English duty to keep and bear arms. Its origin is not a right. One could argue that the GGONIYP right to defend oneself is nonexistent without the RKBA, but it does not require any specific RKBA, just the right to be armed well enough to achieve the goal. Therefore, the specific RKBA that is enumerated is not a fundamental right, but (depending on how you look at it) a supporting right or a right that developed from a duty.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I don't know what GGONIYP is.

Doing some quick Googling, perhaps you are right about the origin of the 2nd amendment. Thankfully, according to the good 'ol wikipedia, it would seem as though the Supreme Court disagrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
"The bill states that it is acting to restore "ancient rights" trampled upon by James II, though some have argued that the English Bill of Rights created a new right to have arms, which developed out of a duty to have arms. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms."

FYI, I feel absolutely no responsibility to keep up with non-established acronyms made up by the members of this board at whim. I saw your post earlier, but didn't remember what it stood for. I think it's a waste of time to make one's post unnecessarily cryptic by using non-standard language and/or acronyms.

 

[eye95]

OK, I'll bite.... what does GGONIYP stand for?

God-Given (or natural, if you prefer)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I disagree. The fundamental right is one of self-defense. That right implies the RKBA, but does not demand any specific RKBA. The RKBA, as it exists here, is the specific one enumerated in the Constitution.

In the past few weeks I've found myself agreeing with more and more of your posts, but this one I must respectfully disagree with.

The right to keep and bear arms is not derivative of the right to self defense, even though it could be said that the RKBA was enumerated to help ensure the liberty of self defense. The rights to self defense and the right to keep and bear arms certainly compliment each other very well, but I believe that they come from separate branches of the liberty tree, independent of each other, if you will... There are a lot of liberties that are hard to implement and protect without the the implementation and protection of other corresponding liberties, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are derivative of each other.

To say it's derivative of the right to self defense, I believe, is a misconception that lends itself to the anti-gun crowd, because it creates a false impression that the right to ownership and possession of firearms is linked to or founded upon the utility and practicality of it. It gives people the impression that if guns weren't "needed," there would no longer be a "right" to carry them, and so it gives the anti-gun crowd an attack vector. They can trample the rights of others by trying to diminish the legitimacy of the claim that firearm ownership and possession is necessary for self-defense. Therefore we end up on a road of trying to prove the utility and need for it as opposed to defending the simple position that intervention is unwarranted and unjustified. The burden of justification should be on those demanding the intervention.

Good reply and I will ad. The government doesn't create any rights. The 2A even makes a preexisting right in the way it is written. The RKBA is the fundamental human right of resistance to tyranny. The colonist already had this right as an English right as eye pointed out but, this doesn't mean they invented it either. Even Aristotle talked about how tyrants and oligarchs don't like an armed society because it keeps them in check. Humans have been arming themselves to keep them free of oppression since before human history.

 

[eye95]

No one said, nor implied, nor hinted, nor alluded, nor... that the government creates rights.

The government, by its very nature, restricts rights. It restricts activities that one could do absent government in order to protect the rights that really matter, the fundamental rights: to speak your mind, to espouse a philosophy or a religion, to associate with whom you choose to associate, to own, use, and trade property, to protect yourself, etc.

In addition to fundamental rights, which government cannot morally restrict, there are other rights, not fundamental (some being implementations of fundamental rights), that, as part of the creation of that government, were put off-limits to governmental intrusion. The RKBA, as it is specifically implemented here, is such a right: not fundamental, but an implementation of a fundamental right, one that was put off-limits to governmental intrusion.

No promise was made with the adoption of the 2A that possession of crew-served weapons would be protected. No promise was made in the BoR that the right to keep and use bombs would be protected. Nothing said that these activities would be outlawed, just that there was no promise of protection. They can be restricted, regulated, or outlawed.

The context and the history of the 2A makes it abundantly clear what the government was restricted from infringing: the right to possess and to carry personal arms (that could be carried), that typically had civilian use, but also could be used, in a pinch, as one's personal military weapon.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

To me all rights are fundamental. The way the 2A is worded recognizes that this fundamental right to resist is not to be infringed upon.

 

[georg jetson]

SNIP

No promise was made with the adoption of the 2A that possession of crew-served weapons would be protected. No promise was made in the BoR that the right to keep and use bombs would be protected. Nothing said that these activities would be outlawed, just that there was no promise of protection. They can be restricted, regulated, or outlawed.

And no promise was necessary. The 2A clearly prevents the fed gov from regulating arms. Also, it has not given the authority to define the term "arms". When proper application of the rule of law is applied in a constitutional republic, your argument fails. The 2A is not open for interpretation. The language is clear.

Also, you mention "use bombs". This is a strawman. No one is arguing the use of anything, simply keeping and bearing.

The context and the history of the 2A makes it abundantly clear what the government was restricted from infringing: the right to possess and to carry personal arms (that could be carried), that typically had civilian use, but also could be used, in a pinch, as one's personal military weapon.

The context and history of the 2A makes it abundantly clear what the government was restricted from infringing: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Show me where the constitution gives authority to the fed gov to define "arms".

 

[eye95]

To me all rights are fundamental. The way the 2A is worded recognizes that this fundamental right to resist is not to be infringed upon.

That is a failed argument. Since you essentially have the ability to do anything absent government (that someone else, exercising their ability to do anything, does not physically stop you from doing), then every activity can be argued as a "fundamental" right. The very purpose of government is to restrict some activities so that very specific others may be practiced with reasonable certainty that they will not be stopped by another person. Those very specific others are "fundamental rights," the ones society is created to protect.

Some activities, that are not fundamental rights (as described above and in need of absolute protection), through historical lesson have proved themselves worthy of explicit protection. The RKBA is such a right. It earned its enumeration from the lesson of the Revolutionary War, that lesson being that, to protect ourselves from future tyranny, we need to be able to prevent an oppressive King George-style gun-grab.

 

[georg jetson]

That is a failed argument. Since you essentially have the ability to do anything absent government (that someone else, exercising their ability to do anything, does not physically stop you from doing), then every activity can be argued as a "fundamental" right. The very purpose of government is to restrict some activities so that very specific others may be practiced with reasonable certainty that they will not be stopped by another person. Those very specific others are "fundamental rights," the ones society is created to protect.

I disagree with this. Having the ability to do anything does not mean you have the right to do anything. We have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness regardless of what, if any, political system we have. By definition the right of one must not interfere with the right of another. This line does not exist because of government. This line is to be protected by government. To speak of "fundamental rights" versus some other kind of right is a difference without distinction.

Some activities, that are not fundamental rights (as described above and in need of absolute protection), through historical lesson have proved themselves worthy of explicit protection. The RKBA is such a right. It earned its enumeration from the lesson of the Revolutionary War, that lesson being that, to protect ourselves from future tyranny, we need to be able to prevent an oppressive King George-style gun-grab.

Distinction without difference. I have a right to keep and bear my Springfield XD. I have a right to defend myself. These are not different rights, nor is one more "fundamental" than the other. They are both PART of a right to protect my ability to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[eye95]

Rights are not a construct of government, however, absent government, no one can exercise rights, just abilities.

Rights are useless without government. Without government, you are at the mercy of the more powerful. With government, the People and the government can be prohibited, backed by the force of the law, from infringing on those fundamental rights the government was formed to protect. In addition, with the formation of government, it is wise to put other restrictions on the construct that is government that are not put on the People, to keep the People in charge, to keep the government from becoming tyrannical to the point where it no longer protects fundamental rights--and even infringes on them. The 2A is one of those restrictions placed on government only, not on the People.

 

[georg jetson]

Rights are not a construct of government, however, absent government, no one can exercise rights, just abilities.

This is clearly incorrect. It would be impossible to form a government if rights could not be exercised absent government.

Rights are useless without government. Without government, you are at the mercy of the more powerful. With government, the People and the government can be prohibited, backed by the force of the law, from infringing on those fundamental rights the government was formed to protect. In addition, with the formation of government, it is wise to put other restrictions on the construct that is government that are not put on the People, to keep the People in charge, to keep the government from becoming tyrannical to the point where it no longer protects fundamental rights--and even infringes on them. The 2A is one of those restrictions placed on government only, not on the People.

Strawman. You didn't address the fact that the fed gov has no authority to define the term "arms".

Rights are useless without government? I disagree, but that's not what we're discussing here. Though, I would argue that even with government(especially the one we have today) we are at the mercy of the more powerful.

Your explanation does nothing to advance the argument that there's a difference between a "fundamental right" and some other kind of right.

 

[MyGlockisaRedneck0]

This is clearly incorrect. It would be impossible to form a government if rights could not be exercised absent government.



Strawman. You didn't address the fact that the fed gov has no authority to define the term "arms".

Rights are useless without government? I disagree, but that's not what we're discussing here. Though, I would argue that even with government(especially the one we have today) we are at the mercy of the more powerful.

Your explanation does nothing to advance the argument that there's a difference between a "fundamental right" and some other kind of right.

Theoretical discussions are fun especially if there are no historical precedents available to make a concise argument. However, in this case, there are many and varied examples.

If there is no organized government to "protect" these rights that y'all are enumerating, then it all comes down to who has the guns, the ammo, and the abilty to utilize such to protect their "rights." I have plenty of guns and ammo but I am alone as the wife does not like to even shoot much less handle a gun. She will pick up one and move it out of her way if I leave one laying around.

Those who don't like the idea of me having guns can organize and come and try to take my stuff. If I am alone, they will probably win. Now, if I can organize and get like minded people to join me in resistance, then we may win out.

As far as what is and is not a right or a fundamental right, rave on for y'all are just talking anyway.

 

[eye95]

Theoretical discussions are fun especially if there are no historical precedents available to make a concise argument. However, in this case, there are many and varied examples.

If there is no organized government to "protect" these rights that y'all are enumerating, then it all comes down to who has the guns, the ammo, and the abilty to utilize such to protect their "rights."...

That is almost precisely the point I am making. Nothing would be a right absent a legal system. Activities would be protectable by you and yours, or they would not be. Those activities could be ones we call "rights" today, they could be "crimes," or something in between. Select ones of these activities only become actual rights when they can be protected by a legal system accepted by the overwhelming majority of the People. That legal system would be set up as part of setting up the government. Ergo, rights only exist in the context of a government and a legal system that can protect them.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think this needs to be stated: Not every one of the activities that you could protect if there is no government is a right that will be protected by a legal system within a government. Some here seem to think that everything that is not a crime is a right. To paraphrase a line from The Incredibles (an animated motion picture with a distinct pro-Liberty message) : When everything is a right, nothing is.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Rights are not a construct of government, however, absent government, no one can exercise rights, just abilities.

LOL. WTF are you talking about? This doesn't make any sense.

You must think that rights are only corporeal if they're ensured. You must also think that government is the only way to ensure them, despite the fact that the guaranteed ability of the people to resist government is explicitly cited as necessary for the security of liberty.

Neither of these are true.

I've lost track of what we're actually even arguing about, and I really don't want to battle semantics with you. But statements like the one quoted, are just too far out there to not say anything. Perhaps I just don't get what you mean. If that's the case, you may have to real in your terminology a bit, to be a little bit more standard.


EDIT: OK, READING BELOW....

That is almost precisely the point I am making. Nothing would be a right absent a legal system. Activities would be protectable by you and yours, or they would not be. Those activities could be ones we call "rights" today, they could be "crimes," or something in between. Select ones of these activities only become actual rights when they can be protected by a legal system accepted by the overwhelming majority of the People. That legal system would be set up as part of setting up the government. Ergo, rights only exist in the context of a government and a legal system that can protect them.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think this needs to be stated: Not every one of the activities that you could protect if there is no government is a right that will be protected by a legal system within a government. Some here seem to think that everything that is not a crime is a right. To paraphrase a line from The Incredibles (an animated motion picture with a distinct pro-Liberty message) : When everything is a right, nothing is.

I think I get what you mean, now. All you would have had to say is "right is a legal term, so we can't have rights without a legal system, and therefore government which establishes legal systems". Unfortunately, "right" is not a legal term. It just isn't. Hasn't been, shouldn't be, hopefully won't ever be. So, you're just wrong, in that respect. Secondly, legal systems have existed, exist, and should exist outside of any traditional government structure.

So no, government is not essential to the existence of, or exercise of a person's rights.

 

[eye95]

"Rights" IS a legal term. That, morally, it would be incorrect for one person to deprive another of what, today, we call a "right," does not mean that absent a government, it was a "right." Without a government, all people can do is protect their ability to do what they want to do. Some of what they want to do may be what we, today, call a "right." Most wouldn't be. But none of that actions are rights, absent a legal system, as there is no system that protects those activities as special. No one action would be any more special than any other that someone chose to protect with force.

That we have a legal system is what allows us to classify certain actions as "rights," others as "crimes," yet others as "privileges" and everything in between.

The correctness of protecting what we, today, call rights has always been reality. That doesn't mean that they were "rights" then. They got no more protection than anything else anyone wanted to do before government recognized, and a legal system protected, rights.