Where do you draw the line?

[OC for ME]

I guess The Founders could have used the "the ability of the people...." vs. the "right of the people...."

I guess I view "right" vs. "ability" in the light of "I can do if I want to" vs. "the capability of doing so if I want to."

A right does not require ability, a right merely exists. The exercise thereof is not a prerequisite to retaining the right. A citizen has a right to life, liberty, and property even though that citizen may not have the ability to exercise a right. A severely disabled citizen who requires 100% assistance to maintain life, advocate for their liberty, and to protect their property.

 

[eye95]

The difference between an "ability" and a "right" is the key. An ability, absent a government and laws, means that one can use force to acquire what he wants, regardless of the morality or what anyone else wants. A "right," in our system, at least as it was originally envisioned, was an act that was no one else's business but the actors because his act did not infringe on similar acts of another.

The problem is that, absent government and a legal system, the only way to protect "rights" is the same as the way to protect anything else the actor wanted to do: force.

Our legal system is founded on the ideal that one may not use force to get what he wants if it deprives another of a "right." Without the legal system, what we call a "right" is no more special than a "want." It is the existence of a legal system that makes rights distinct and possible.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Eye your argument is based on a statist view rights come from government. If you say they can't exist with government. I absolutely disagree with this. Society and people existed and have rights long before government. And yes we have the right to do anything we want until it conflicts with anthers rights.

Your viewpoint is contrary to the natural rights theory many of the founders based their view point and the constitution on. Natural rights are just that they are natural they are inalienable. One of these rights is the natural right to bear arms in resistance to anything or anyone that infringes upon your rights including your government.

 

[OC for ME]

Careful.....someone has always been in charge.....long before he/she, or they, were referred to as a government.

 

[johnfenter]

Hmmm.....

At the time 2A was written and included into the BoR, individual "arms" were rifles, pistols, shotguns, edged and pointed weapons, and impact weapons. They had no crystal ball with which they could foresee motorized, crew-served weapons or the airborne weapons of the future. Does that mean the BoR needs to be rewritten or even amended? No! But... if we start interpreting it to permit individual ownership of any and all weapons of war, the left will immediately pursue (with some psychologically implied justification) their claim that our Constitution is obviously obsolete and needs to be rewritten or rescinded. Perhaps the legal challenge is what is needed to resolve the issue with finality. And the "battlefield" of my backyard (roughly 10'x40') would definitely meet the definition of "CQB"!
I am well aware of the unconstitutional governmental actions that took place during both events, and I don't know that the phrase "exigent circumstances" appears anywhere in our Constitution.
IMNSHO, a government that violates our Constitution is no longer a legitimate government. I also understand that the time for preparation is prior to the expected event. Otherwise it is not "preparation" - after the fact it is called panic catch-up.
I'll put that on my "to-do list".
I agree with 2A being absolute (wait for it)........ BUT, realistically, very little "of military value is available to us" (assuming that "us" is Joe Average - a working-class wage earner). Defensive items, such as ballistic vests are available, as are handguns, rifles and shotguns. Full-auto weapons are available to those who can afford them, but they are also carefully monitored/controlled via the additional expense of the required "tax stamp" (if confiscation should come, these will probably be the first items to be taken). I'm uncertain of the status of mortars, hand grenades, Claymores and RPGs, but I feel safe in assuming that they, too, are subject to Draconian regulation - IF they are not simply prohibited for private ownership. However, IF one has the money, and is willing to jump through enough federal hoops, there is little that is not conditionally available. Pax...

At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, the average militiaman had access to muskets, long rifles, swords, daggers, etc. The above average militiaman, being the local gentry of some wealth and who were usually the elected officers, had access to horse drawn field pieces, mortars, and in some cases the very wealthy managed to fit out their own men-of-war (the equivalent of a modern frigate) for naval battle, with cannon and letters of marque, and went a-privateering. There are wealthy people today who own tanks and APCs, artillery, warplanes, and other crew-served weaponry. What they lack, under Federal law, is the ordnance these systems are designed to deliver. Yes, the 2nd Amendment probably would not countenance the use of nuclear or biological weaponry by the militia. But, since recent world and national events have shown, even chemical weapons (CS, pepper spray, homemade Chlorine gas) are feasible militia weapons. Hell, they are used by government on a regular basis. Government has land mines; militia have IEDs. Of course, nobody is going to be carrying their Dragon or Stinger to the bank; those weapons will stay in the hall closet until needed for drill or combat. Same with crew-served machine guns. But the availability of the systems is, I believe, intended by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[eye95]

Eye your argument is based on a statist view rights come from government. If you say they can't exist with government. I absolutely disagree with this. Society and people existed and have rights long before government. And yes we have the right to do anything we want until it conflicts with anthers rights.

Your viewpoint is contrary to the natural rights theory many of the founders based their view point and the constitution on. Natural rights are just that they are natural they are inalienable. One of these rights is the natural right to bear arms in resistance to anything or anyone that infringes upon your rights including your government.

Without a government, without a societal structure, without a legal system, anyone could claim anything was a "right" and use force to secure it. A handful of folks who had philosophized on it might agree on a set of rights. But, again, without an agreement on what rights are, nothing is a right, it is simply a want being enforced a the point of a sword.

Case in point: Cattlemen in the early West who believed they had a "right" to move their cattle over anyone's land to get from point A to point B. When courts and law enforcement made more inroads, that "right" evaporated. You could argue that the property owners had rights, but, no, they did not, because the only way they could exercise those rights was with a gun. Enforcing what you think is a right with a gun makes it a want. The cattlemen and the farmers both had conflicting wants, and the cattlemen, for a long time, usually got their want, while the farmers did not.

In order to elevate rights above ordinary wants there needs to be a legal system--one of the functions of government. Hell, it is the function of government: protecting rights. Government does not grant rights. I have never asserted anything of the sort. However, without a legal system, no one has rights. They have wants that they must assert by force.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[eye95]

At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, the average militiaman had access to muskets, long rifles, swords, daggers, etc. The above average militiaman, being the local gentry of some wealth and who were usually the elected officers, had access to horse drawn field pieces, mortars, and in some cases the very wealthy managed to fit out their own men-of-war (the equivalent of a modern frigate) for naval battle, with cannon and letters of marque, and went a-privateering. There are wealthy people today who own tanks and APCs, artillery, warplanes, and other crew-served weaponry. What they lack, under Federal law, is the ordnance these systems are designed to deliver. Yes, the 2nd Amendment probably would not countenance the use of nuclear or biological weaponry by the militia. But, since recent world and national events have shown, even chemical weapons (CS, pepper spray, homemade Chlorine gas) are feasible militia weapons. Hell, they are used by government on a regular basis. Government has land mines; militia have IEDs. Of course, nobody is going to be carrying their Dragon or Stinger to the bank; those weapons will stay in the hall closet until needed for drill or combat. Same with crew-served machine guns. But the availability of the systems is, I believe, intended by the 2nd Amendment.

It is not a matter of "access." It is a matter of history and context what "arms" in the 2A meant. Again, if you study the history of the 2A, going all the way back to its roots in the English duty to keep and bear arms, the right, the duty, and the 2A are clearly talking about individual weapons with civilian purpose that can be used, in a pinch, as a personal military weapon.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Eye.... all of your critiques of a "stateless society" apply to a stateful one as well.

But... but... if we don't have government, we'll have to protect our rights outselvesssss GASP... with FORCE(GASP)

When, the essence of government is simply a monopoly on the use of force. So, basically, what you're saying is, we can't use force to protect our rights, we must use force by proxy. There is nothing magical about a group of people (human beings, just like everyone else) writing down on a piece of paper that they are the only ones who can use force, and that they will take a certain % of everyone's money to maintain their power. Calling it a government doesn't change what it is, it doesn't somehow make it any more moral than a group of people doing the exact same thing and skipping the government title entirely.

Eye, I honestly think that you need to re-think your semantics. The way in which you're using the words that you are, is completely non-standard. Even if you have a valid philosophy, I don't think you're presenting it in an understandable way. For the record, I think that you've just obscured a generic statist point of view behind irregular terminology.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Without a government, without a societal structure, without a legal system, anyone could claim anything was a "right" and use force to secure it. A handful of folks who had philosophized on it might agree on a set of rights. But, again, without an agreement on what rights are, nothing is a right, it is simply a want being enforced a the point of a sword.

Case in point: Cattlemen in the early West who believed they had a "right" to move their cattle over anyone's land to get from point A to point B. When courts and law enforcement made more inroads, that "right" evaporated. You could argue that the property owners had rights, but, no, they did not, because the only way they could exercise those rights was with a gun. Enforcing what you think is a right with a gun makes it a want. The cattlemen and the farmers both had conflicting wants, and the cattlemen, for a long time, usually got their want, while the farmers did not.

In order to elevate rights above ordinary wants there needs to be a legal system--one of the functions of government. Hell, it is the function of government: protecting rights. Government does not grant rights. I have never asserted anything of the sort. However, without a legal system, no one has rights. They have wants that they must assert by force.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Responding to the bold. First of all, legal systems have existed and do exist outside the context, control or influence of government. Secondly, that you can only see one way that a society can stabilize upon a consistent understanding of rights, doesn't make it the right way, and it certainly doesn't justify your use of force to establish and maintain your system of choice.

All I hear is "it's the only way"

Well, that isn't a legitimate argument when the morality of the establishment is called into question.

Moreover, it certainly is not the only.

Statist positioning 101. Necessary evil. Blah blah blah. Nothing fresh, just irregular terminology.

 

[eye95]

The primary argument against the point I am making is, "Hey, that's statism." meh. Read Federalist 2.

I have arrived at the point where I don't care if the folks responding to me get it. My point is out there and explained as well as I can. My target audience are all the folks who have read it, have been thinking about it, and haven't replied. They have been reached as well as I can. Maybe they agree. Maybe they don't. Things are just getting repetitive, so I will move on.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Am I the only one that finds it ironic that you would reference Federalist papers in response to the claim that your position is statist-leaning? If you want to move on, I don't blame you. I would agree that both positions have been laid out decently considering the medium and is probably enough for the target audience to continue in their own research and make their own conclusions about each position.

Edit: I agree it's a good place to stop. I will stop beating the horsey. Thank you for the discussion, and hopefully the few insults that were thrown around don't cause any ill will.

 

[eye95]

Lest anyone misunderstand, the Federalists were NOT "statist." While it is reasonable to say that the anti-Federalists were further away from statism, neither group were even close to being "statists"! However, some need to call anyone who is not Libertarian or an anarchist a "statist." Sorry to have to say this, but that thinking is binary and shallow.

If you want to understand the necessity of government, as I posted earlier, read Federalist 2.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Without a government, without a societal structure, without a legal system, anyone could claim anything was a "right" and use force to secure it. A handful of folks who had philosophized on it might agree on a set of rights. But, again, without an agreement on what rights are, nothing is a right, it is simply a want being enforced a the point of a sword.

Case in point: Cattlemen in the early West who believed they had a "right" to move their cattle over anyone's land to get from point A to point B. When courts and law enforcement made more inroads, that "right" evaporated. You could argue that the property owners had rights, but, no, they did not, because the only way they could exercise those rights was with a gun. Enforcing what you think is a right with a gun makes it a want. The cattlemen and the farmers both had conflicting wants, and the cattlemen, for a long time, usually got their want, while the farmers did not.

In order to elevate rights above ordinary wants there needs to be a legal system--one of the functions of government. Hell, it is the function of government: protecting rights. Government does not grant rights. I have never asserted anything of the sort. However, without a legal system, no one has rights. They have wants that they must assert by force.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

The cattlemen won, in those states governments like Wyoming you have to leave a large portion of your land open to for people to drive cattle across, now you loose your land by the coercive violent force of government. This isn't people claiming a right this is people overriding a right, these examples of the west were not the norm though and are isolated incidents to rationalize government. The truth is we don't know if another agreement would have been worked out between the private properties. But somebody did invent barbed wire fencing which helped a lot.

Read the declaration of independence, TJ, wrote about inalienable rights, rights don't evaporate because someone can override them by force. You have the right to life, you can be murdered, that doesn't mean your right "evaporated".

John Jay was a statist who was arguing we need to surrender some natural rights for a centralized government.

Society exists with or without government, many societies have lived quite happily by developing legal cultures and ways of handling things without a monopoly of force given to a few. The bible shows the Hebrews living for nearly 400 years in a fairly anarchistic society.

We go back 10,000 years do you have a right to carry a spear and a rock to resist against oppression or infringements against you of any kind? There is no government to secure this right? Yep go further back than the brits, the right to keep and bear arms was always there.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Lest anyone misunderstand, the Federalists were NOT "statist." While it is reasonable to say that the anti-Federalists were further away from statism, neither group were even close to being "statists"! However, some need to call anyone who is not Libertarian or an anarchist a "statist." Sorry to have to say this, but that thinking is binary and shallow.

If you want to understand the necessity of government, as I posted earlier, read Federalist 2.

Funny. The irony of this post in the insinuations of name calling while name calling, :lol:.

Statists put the state above individual rights. The term was developed during the rise of progressivism and more centralization of the late 19th century.

Hamilton and John Jay definitely were statists. Madison was statist light, my personal feelings is he thought a more centralized state would protect rights better, he was wrong, he then left the federalist because they were too statist and joined TJ's party.

The Federalist papers were pieces of propaganda to sell the new Constitution to the general public who mostly tended to be anti federalist in nature, they have made all sorts of promises in them that the very writers later (especially Hamilton) tried to claim the exact opposite.

 

[georg jetson]

the[/i] function of government: protecting rights. Government does not grant rights. I have never asserted anything of the sort. However, without a legal system, no one has rights. They have wants that they must assert by force.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Because I know Eye is a christian, it is this quote that I have a special interest to bring up with him.

There is a legal system ABOVE government. Some call it natural law and others, like us Christians, call it God's law. The "right" is part of the law that has existed at least as long as humans have. That we institute governments to secure these rights is in no way the only choice we have to secure them. However, the fact that we understand that we DO have these rights, and therefore are motivated to secure them in a reasonable way, demonstrates the existence of, AND knowledge of the existence of our rights outside of any organization we create.

Also, it is our knowledge of our rights outside of government that allows us to discern if we have government that does, in fact, protect them.

 

[georg jetson]

Eye.... all of your critiques of a "stateless society" apply to a stateful one as well.

But... but... if we don't have government, we'll have to protect our rights outselvesssss GASP... with FORCE(GASP)

When, the essence of government is simply a monopoly on the use of force. So, basically, what you're saying is, we can't use force to protect our rights, we must use force by proxy. There is nothing magical about a group of people (human beings, just like everyone else) writing down on a piece of paper that they are the only ones who can use force, and that they will take a certain % of everyone's money to maintain their power. Calling it a government doesn't change what it is, it doesn't somehow make it any more moral than a group of people doing the exact same thing and skipping the government title entirely.

Eye, I honestly think that you need to re-think your semantics. The way in which you're using the words that you are, is completely non-standard. Even if you have a valid philosophy, I don't think you're presenting it in an understandable way. For the record, I think that you've just obscured a generic statist point of view behind irregular terminology.

+1