Founders and Framers on the People's Natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms

[phrodeau]

Some churches are desperate for ways to keep people in their pews.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/2...ch-raffles-ar-15-plans-next-giveaway-tonight/

Ron Stafford had a hunch that this past Sunday's church service would be different, but he certainly didn’t think he’d take home an AR-15.

Stafford, 42, of upstate Schenectady, N.Y., won the assault rifle during a pre-announced raffle at the March 23 service at Grace Baptist Church in Troy, where pastor John Koletas preaches that the constitutional right to bear arms shall not be abridged.

On Monday, Stafford was on his way to pick up the gun -- valued up to $1,200 -- after a federal background check.

"I’ll plead the Fifth on that,” Stafford joked when asked if the AR-15 was his first gun. “I’m on my way to pick it up right now, and to meet the pastor.”

Stafford, who works in sales, said he went to the service “on a whim” and didn’t expect to be selected. Three other people were initially picked, but Stafford walked away with the gun because they had already left the service, which drew roughly 150 congregants.

…

Some churches in Kentucky have also been using guns to attract new members. Earlier this month, churches in Paducah — where three students were killed during a school shooting in 1997 — hosted “Second Amendment Celebrations.” At Lone Oak First Baptist Church, roughly 1,300 people crammed into the church hall for a steak dinner and pep talk by gun expert Chuck McAlister, who was hired by Kentucky’s Southern Baptists to grow membership. Twenty-five guns were raffled off during the dinner and winners were required to pass a background check.

 

[koalabear]

Some churches are desperate for ways to keep people in their pews.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/2...ch-raffles-ar-15-plans-next-giveaway-tonight/

Beats the hell-out of an obama phone.

 

[islandman]

If the government can take something away it meets the definition of a privilege.

The sky is an angry green.

There, now we've both said something completely stupid.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The sky is an angry green.

There, now we've both said something completely stupid.

But nothing that actually refutes what I've said.

 

[islandman]

But nothing that actually refutes what I've said.

What you've said merely articulates your definition of a "right" and certainly not the the legal definition.

Further, a "privilege" is a 'right' given to a class or other sub-set of the population.

So, yes, nothing that actually refutes what you've said.

Then again, nothing that you've said actually exists in the real word.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

What you've said merely articulates your definition of a "right" and certainly not the the legal definition.

Further, a "privilege" is a 'right' given to a class or other sub-set of the population.

So, yes, nothing that actually refutes what you've said.

Then again, nothing that you've said actually exists in the real word.

So the government can't take away gun ownership? Simple question you keep avoiding.

Let's go to your definitions. What is the difference between a right & a privilege?

 

[bill-pix-trade]

That's my home town.

 

[islandman]

So the government can't take away gun ownership? Simple question you keep avoiding.

Let's go to your definitions. What is the difference between a right & a privilege?

Not my definition, boyo, but rather then legal constructs that wrote the Constitution and to which I adhere. The fact that you've formed some sort of mish-mash with their meanings while ignoring the fact that the Bill of Rights lists natural rights - as defined by the Framers - and the 9th Amendment defined additional natural rights not articulated in the Bill of Rights, well, that's not really a concern of mine.

Put another way, it is called the Constitution of the United States. It is not called the Constitution of the United States as Interpreted by Sgt. SpiderMan.


Now that I've established that you don't care to differentiate between a natural right and a legal right, gun ownership is both in that it a natural right to have one and there exists a legal right to relieve someone of their ownership.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Not my definition, boyo, but rather then legal constructs that wrote the Constitution and to which I adhere. The fact that you've formed some sort of mish-mash with their meanings while ignoring the fact that the Bill of Rights lists natural rights - as defined by the Framers - and the 9th Amendment defined additional natural rights not articulated in the Bill of Rights, well, that's not really a concern of mine.

Put another way, it is called the Constitution of the United States. It is not called the Constitution of the United States as Interpreted by Sgt. SpiderMan.


Now that I've established that you don't care to differentiate between a natural right and a legal right, gun ownership is both in that it a natural right to have one and there exists a legal right to relieve someone of their ownership.

Never said it was my definition.

So legally what's the difference between a privilege and a right?

 

[islandman]

Never said it was my definition.

So legally what's the difference between a privilege and a right?

Yes, you said that "every court sees it differently", and since you declined to attribute said statement to any court, I will assume that it's yours and yours alone.

As to the legal difference, are you saying that your prior "definition" is now invalid? Otherwise, why worry about the difference now?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Yes, you said that "every court sees it differently", and since you declined to attribute said statement to any court, I will assume that it's yours and yours alone.

As to the legal difference, are you saying that your prior "definition" is now invalid? Otherwise, why worry about the difference now?

I'm not worried about the definition at all. I know what it is & you know what it is, & that's pretty much why you don't want to answer my very direct questions.

You're looking to have a conversation about something that isn't my point. Laws exist that prohibit certain people from owning guns. For some it's based on their age, and for others it's based on their actions. I'm sure somewhere along the lines they've been contested in court & a court has ruled they pass legal muster. You're always free to look that up if you don't believe me.

If you want to say it's part of the Bill of Rights, I really can't argue with that. If you want to say it's a natural right, I'm not going to argue that either. But you need to deal with that fact that it's very legal for the government to deny someone gun ownership, and you'd be hard pressed to find another "right" that the government can take away from people. If a right is something the government can't take away, and they can take away gun ownership, maybe it isn't a right after all.

 

[islandman]

I'm not worried about the definition at all. I know what it is & you know what it is, & that's pretty much why you don't want to answer my very direct questions.

You're looking to have a conversation about something that isn't my point. Laws exist that prohibit certain people from owning guns. For some it's based on their age, and for others it's based on their actions. I'm sure somewhere along the lines they've been contested in court & a court has ruled they pass legal muster. You're always free to look that up if you don't believe me.

If you want to say it's part of the Bill of Rights, I really can't argue with that. If you want to say it's a natural right, I'm not going to argue that either. But you need to deal with that fact that it's very legal for the government to deny someone gun ownership, and you'd be hard pressed to find another "right" that the government can take away from people. If a right is something the government can't take away, and they can take away gun ownership, maybe it isn't a right after all.

At the risk of sounding redundant, you continue to ignore that there are two types of rights - natural, legal. Accepting the distinction between the two will allow you to understand why the Bill of Rights isn't the beginning or the end of our laws. I'm not an expert, but if I can understand how one follows the other, so can you.

There's also a distinction and societal argument to be made between "you are a U.S. citizen and as a result, gun ownership is your right" and "you are a convicted felon and as such, we are taking away your gun." The government should not be able to take away the guns of a law-abiding citizen. Should the government be able to take away the guns of a criminal? Yes, I say. Why? Because they have proven themselves unable to carry out the responsibilities of the right.

IIf you want to say it's part of the Bill of Rights, I really can't argue with that. If you want to say it's a natural right, I'm not going to argue that either.

I'm not saying any of that. I'm merely parroting the Framers.

If you have an argument to make, I believe it is with them. And to that I once again say, the document is called the Constitution of the United States and Not the Constitution of the United States as Interpreted by SgtSpiderMan.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

At the risk of sounding redundant, you continue to ignore that there are two types of rights - natural, legal. Accepting the distinction between the two will allow you to understand why the Bill of Rights isn't the beginning or the end of our laws. I'm not an expert, but if I can understand how one follows the other, so can you.

There's also a distinction and societal argument to be made between "you are a U.S. citizen and as a result, gun ownership is your right" and "you are a convicted felon and as such, we are taking away your gun." The government should not be able to take away the guns of a law-abiding citizen. Should the government be able to take away the guns of a criminal? Yes, I say. Why? Because they have proven themselves unable to carry out the responsibilities of the right.



I haven't ignored that at all. There are natural rights & legal rights. Super!


I'm not saying any of that. I'm merely parroting the Framers.

If you have an argument to make, I believe it is with them. And to that I once again say, the document is called the Constitution of the United States and Not the Constitution of the United States as Interpreted by SgtSpiderMan.

I haven't ignored that at all. There are natural rights & legal rights. Super! Again, that's not my point.

The founders have said the right to bear arms was not to be infringed upon, and the courts have said it can be. Which seems to raise the question on if that's actually a right or not. I'm merely parroting the courts. If you have a problem with that I suggest you take it up with them.

 

[islandman]

I haven't ignored that at all. There are natural rights & legal rights. Super! Again, that's not my point.

The founders have said the right to bear arms was not to be infringed upon, and the courts have said it can be. Which seems to raise the question on if that's actually a right or not. I'm merely parroting the courts. If you have a problem with that I suggest you take it up with them.

The bit in bold is my only problem. You acknowledge that there are two kinds of rights, yet insist that only one can apply at a time.

The Founders sided with pluralism, the courts have derived legal rights from natural rights, and I'll side with them. Your binary thinking seems to to be the odd mind out.

Also, way to move the goalposts to this discussion. I imagine that's your privilege.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Yes, you said that "every court sees it differently", and since you declined to attribute said statement to any court, I will assume that it's yours and yours alone.

As to the legal difference, are you saying that your prior "definition" is now invalid? Otherwise, why worry about the difference now?

Islandman, you just got punked by the second-stringers.

Go lick your wounds or whatever.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The bit in bold is my only problem. You acknowledge that there are two kinds of rights, yet insist that only one can apply at a time.

The Founders sided with pluralism, the courts have derived legal rights from natural rights, and I'll side with them. Your binary thinking seems to to be the odd mind out.

Also, way to move the goalposts to this discussion. I imagine that's your privilege.

Never said any of that. For the third time, it seems you really don't want to have a conversation about what I actually said.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Nope.

The government can take a life as consequence for one's actions.

Well I guess there is no such thing as a right then....as nothing anyone in the US considers a right meets your qualifications as they can all be taken from anyone.

Proof that you aren't mentally qualified to have a gun.

Nuh uha!!

Again, I'm not going to take your gun. The only entity that can legally take your gun is the government.

No one is....and no they can't, they have to make me a felon first.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Well I guess there is no such thing as a right then....as nothing anyone in the US considers a right meets your qualifications as they can all be taken from anyone.

I would argue however that this is absolutely true. It the same as when asked where do rights come from? If they are natural or imbued by God we get awfully cocky telling people around the world what weapons they can and can't have and if they are granted by the government (which they are) then the government ultimately is free to alter them. Granted altering them is more trouble than it's worth so we tend to just come up with work arounds but still.

 

[islandman]

Never said any of that. For the third time, it seems you really don't want to have a conversation about what I actually said.

What you said involved your own definitions of words.

You're welcome to a conversation with yourself.

Islandman, you just got punked by the second-stringers.

Go lick your wounds or whatever.

"Turn the page" is the phrase you're grasping for.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I would argue however that this is absolutely true. It the same as when asked where do rights come from? If they are natural or imbued by God we get awfully cocky telling people around the world what weapons they can and can't have and if they are granted by the government (which they are) then the government ultimately is free to alter them. Granted altering them is more trouble than it's worth so we tend to just come up with work arounds but still.

Oh it is, I don't believe in rights beyond what the moment holds. I might legally have the right of way stepping out into the cross walk but if an 80,000lb rock truck is bearing down at 40mph on me the last thing I'm going to do is jump out in front of the silly thing and go "Right of way!!" no....not right of way....stupid.

Just like I don't think owning a gun is a right beyond the fact that I have them and will always have access to them regardless of the laws and or how they change.

As I'm pretty sure you and I have hashed out before rights are nothing more than what the herd agrees rights are. And right now the herd agrees the 2A stays so FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS MOTHER FUCKERS!!!

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

What you said involved your own definitions of words.

You're welcome to a conversation with yourself.





"Turn the page" is the phrase you're grasping for.

Which is why I asked for yours, but you refused to give them. Would you care to tell us now what the difference between a right & a privilege is?

 

[islandman]

Which is why I asked for yours, but you refused to give them. Would you care to tell us now what the difference between a right & a privilege is?

Mine are the legal definitions, which can be found by anyone with a working browser.

And likely in the same place on the web that supports the statement that "every court sees it differently".

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Mine are the legal definitions, which can be found by anyone with a working browser.

And likely in the same place on the web that supports the statement that "every court sees it differently".

So where's the problem? A right is something that can't be taken away. A privilege is something that can be taken away.

 

[StrangeLife]

Or sufficient skill. I've met enough locksmiths to know that television is bullshit. Professionals who know what kind of lock they are up against are through it before you can pay attention. And the high jacker has at least until you land, sure they might not hit the high score but they can still get up on the board with any old building.

If the door delays the hijacker for a few minutes and forces him to make a lot of noise in the process, it will be sufficient for the pilots to initiate the appropriate protocols and take position inside the door brandishing a heavy blunt object.

And while I agree that the unbreakable lock doesn't exist, some are more demanding than others. A lock designed to be part of the security system on a multi-million $$$ was hardly purchased at the Home Depot....

And yes, if the South decided to disregard the Constutition and reinstate slavery we'd have to accept it as the privelege of the mob. Well what would happen realistically is we'd get into a was (just like last time) and the more effective mob would set the rules moving forward but make no mistake it would still be rule of the mob. Because that's how reality works. The "mob" picks the government and the government picks the laws, rights and priveledges.

Ok, so in your mind "the people" is what you refer to as "the mob"?

Well in that case you are right of course. Like all our laws, the constitution is essentially nothing but a piece of paper and it has no magical powers to prevent anybody from doing anything.

But think about it: That would be complete anarchy. Our constitution defines what is the United States of America. Without it we wouldn't be the US at all. We'd be fifty small banana republics, most of which can't even grow any bananas. As such it's arguable the most important piece of paper in the US.

That's why attacks on our fundamental rights, like freedom from slavery and the right carry guns, are attacks on the very foundation of America. Even people who don't own guns should get behind NRA on principle alone.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If the door delays the hijacker for a few minutes and forces him to make a lot of noise in the process, it will be sufficient for the pilots to initiate the appropriate protocols and take position inside the door brandishing a heavy blunt object.

And while I agree that the unbreakable lock doesn't exist, some are more demanding than others. A lock designed to be part of the security system on a multi-million $$$ was hardly purchased at the Home Depot....

Ok, so in your mind "the people" is what you refer to as "the mob"?

Well in that case you are right of course. Like all our laws, the constitution is essentially nothing but a piece of paper and it has no magical powers to prevent anybody from doing anything.

But think about it: That would be complete anarchy. Our constitution defines what is the United States of America. Without it we wouldn't be the US at all. We'd be fifty small banana republics, most of which can't even grow any bananas. As such it's arguable the most important piece of paper in the US.

That's why attacks on our fundamental rights, like freedom from slavery and the right carry guns, are attacks on the very foundation of America. Even people who don't own guns should get behind NRA on principle alone.

If the average pilot was trained in rudamentry martial arts I might be impressed. As it stands nope, I'm sticking with at the very least I'd like armed pilots. If they think depressurizing the cabin is better than the alternative then I trust them. My point here was only that people want to claim unlimited right to self defense. . .until common sense kicks in. Once you accept that common sense should be part of the conversation you don't get to take refuge behind as you put it a peice of paper. You get to make your point.

I have no argument that the Constitution defines who we are, only that it's not magic. Which it is often treated as such. The government needs at the very least the obedience of the military if not the consent of the people in order to operate.

The NRA doesn't stand for what I stand for. Those "fundamental freedoms" are so subjective that it's hardly funny these days. At least I'm honest and say I don't mind us using common sense to get around the Constitution. While I was up in arms about the treatment of the Occupy Movement, I don't give two shits when a bunch of protestors are moved off the freedom. However the Constitution gives them the right to peacefully assemble. It does not give me the right to be on time to work. However we've all kinda agreed that Constitution or not my right to get to work trumps your freedom of Speech.

I'll be the first person in line to complain about GITMO or the the NSA or wiretapping.

We seem to collectively agree that civilians don't have any business with grenades or flamethrowers or tanks. But they have a Constitutional Right to a goddamn nuke if they can afford it/build it. Again once we start using common sense it's up to the "mob" to decide where the lines are on common sense. You can't after you agree that Lindsey Lohan with a tank is a sufficiently bad idea that we take away that right prior to her fucking up and then say "The Constitution!" when I say, I dunno, I wanna ban sling shots. You get to appeal to the courts and see what they say and we "have" to abide by that unless a sufficient amount of the "mob" says fuck that.