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

[Ishmael]

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.

Starting with the second emboldened quote.......You can own a tank, or a fighter-bomber for that matter and several people do.

The first emboldened quote is borderline gibberish. So much so I hardly know where to begin.

First of all you have no 'right' to a job, let alone any right to be on time or late, or show up at all. There is no 'right' you can invoke to demand that an employer give you a position. Read the Bill of Rights carefully, those are personal 'rights' that do not require the compliance of any third party for you to exercise those rights. And further they are written in such a manner that literally prohibits any third party, the government, from interfering with your exercise of those rights.

Further more while you assert that those rights are subjective I submit to you that they are intuitively obvious and required for any society that might call itself liberty based. None of those rights absolve you of having to take responsibility for any consequences that may occur should you abuse those rights. And I suppose that is where your 'common sense' argument comes in, ie. yelling "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater. You can yell it, but you are still to be held responsible for the consequences. The same applies to any of the other rights.

While you are in here arguing for restrictions on the exercise of second amendment rights the senate is debating the implementation of laws that would essentially call for all 'journalists' to be certified, cards carrying, government approved, members of some sort of press elite. Effectively trampling on two of the three components of the first amendment. They have already trampled on the third, freedom of worship, the opposition to same wending it's way through the courts as we speak. The fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments have already been trampled on to one degree or another.

Your argument based on 'common sense' is basically the legal tenet of law based on precedence and law based on precedence is always bad law. It is like drilling holes in a door, once you drill enough holes that door can no longer be said to exist at all.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

“Everything not forbidden is compulsory.”

Timely thought from Kevin D. Williamson over at NRO:

One of the finest books ever written about politics is The Once and Future King, in which young Arthur, not yet king, is transformed by Merlin into various kinds of animals in order to learn about different kinds of political arrangements: Hawks live under martial law, geese are freewheeling practitioners of spontaneous order, badgers are scholarly isolationists, and ants live under totalitarianism, with T. H. White famously rendering their one-sentence constitution: “Everything not forbidden is compulsory.”

There is a great deal of political and moral real estate between those libertarian geese and totalitarian ants — at least there should be, in a healthy, liberal society. But we do not enjoy, at the political and legal levels, a healthy, liberal society. Rather, we are a society that goes from forbidden to compulsory in record time, and vice versa.

Consider the case of the legal and social standing of homosexuals. Until just over a decade ago, homosexual intercourse was a crime in many jurisdictions. Then in 2003, the Supreme Court overturned the sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas, which was in my view a bad decision with a good outcome. That same year, California considered a civil-union law, which was the source of some controversy. Opponents argued that it was a step toward the much more serious issue of gay marriage, and Democrats rejected that as a red herring: “Nobody is talking about gay marriage,” said John Longville, a Democratic assemblyman, “except the people who are trying to wave it around as a straw-man issue.” Within five years, that straw man was flesh and blood. Along the way the conversation changed from whether states could legalize gay marriage to whether states could prohibit it, and from whether the federal government should recognize same-sex marriage to whether it could refuse to do so. The Democratic governor of Kentucky says that he desires the Supreme Court to “bring finality and certainty to this matter,” which, given his party affiliation, is a way of saying without saying that he wants a national legal mandate for gay marriage. And the matter already has progressed to the point at which we as a nation, having only recently legalized gay marriage, are debating the question of whether bakers and photographers should be locked in cages if they decline, for their own moral or religious reasons, to participate in gay weddings.

“Everything not forbidden is compulsory.”

It is a perversion of the English language that our so-called liberals are the least liberal faction in our polity. American liberalism is the creed that you are entitled to think as you like and entitled to do as you are commanded.

When you forgo natural right for human right then who ever controls the use of force decides on what a right is and they are denied as easily as they are conferred.

 

[Ishmael]

Timely thought from Kevin D. Williamson over at NRO:



When you forgo natural right for human right then who ever controls the use of force decides on what a right is and they are denied as easily as they are conferred.

And at that point in time it can be said that there are no rights at all. Merely a system of "Hall Passes" that the teacher can confer or deny based on a whim.

The rejected EU Constitution was a classic example of that. It had a 'Bill of Rights' two pages long and reflected a laundry list of every liberals wet dreams. But buried in the body of the constitution was a small clause that said the state could modify or abate those 'rights' at any time they chose to do so, for any reason they could make up.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And at that point in time it can be said that there are no rights at all. Merely a system of "Hall Passes" that the teacher can confer or deny based on a whim.

The rejected EU Constitution was a classic example of that. It had a 'Bill of Rights' two pages long and reflected a laundry list of every liberals wet dreams. But buried in the body of the constitution was a small clause that said the state could modify or abate those 'rights' at any time they chose to do so, for any reason they could make up.

Ishmael

For every winner their is a loser demanding similar placation...

 

[Ishmael]

For every winner their is a loser demanding similar placation...

No one reads von Humboldt anymore.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No one reads von Humboldt anymore.

Ishmael

Or Bastiat, Federalist, and apparently warning labels.

I opened a product the other day that had a warning label warning me to read the included warning labels!

 

[Ishmael]

Or Bastiat, Federalist, and apparently warning labels.

I opened a product the other day that had a warning label warning me to read the included warning labels!

Pretty soon they'll be like mattress tags............"under penalty of law."

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yes, we need more laws because there are not enough lawyers and courts...





With the right laws, that airliner would have arrived safe and sound in Beijing.

With the right laws, it would not have snowed this morning.

 

[Ishmael]

Yes, we need more laws because there are not enough lawyers and courts...





With the right laws, that airliner would have arrived safe and sound in Beijing.

With the right laws, it would not have snowed this morning.

"There just ain't no end to doin' good."

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Ah recon so...

We ARE the regular Federal authority now.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

*chuckle*

Joni Ernst, a Republican candidate in the GOP Senate primary in Iowa, is touting her experience “castrating hogs on an Iowa farm” to underscore how emphatic she will be about ending pork barrel spending in the U.S. Senate.

“I'm Joni Ernst. I grew up castrating hogs on an Iowa farm. So when I get to Washington, I'll know how to cut pork,” Ernst says in the ad, followed by the sound of a pig squealing.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...g-Experience-For-Cutting-Pork-Barrel-Spending

 

[phrodeau]

And you fell for it.

 

[koalabear]

And you fell for it.

^Look who's squealing.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Starting with the second emboldened quote.......You can own a tank, or a fighter-bomber for that matter and several people do.

Only by jumping through an insane amount of loops. Enough that virtually nobody does it even people who can afford them, I'm sure you can quote some people who have ones that aren't decommissioned though?

First of all you have no 'right' to a job, let alone any right to be on time or late, or show up at all.

And yet society seems to agree that if protesters are in the middle of the street they can be moved and or arrested. Guess my 'non-right' trumps their Constitutional Right even in the eyes of law and law enforcement.

Further more while you assert that those rights are subjective I submit to you that they are intuitively obvious and required for any society that might call itself liberty based.

That however is your opinion and not a fact.

While you are in here arguing for restrictions on the exercise of second amendment rights the senate is debating the implementation of laws that would essentially call for all 'journalists' to be certified, cards carrying, government approved, members of some sort of press elite. Effectively trampling on two of the three components of the first amendment. They have already trampled on the third, freedom of worship, the opposition to same wending it's way through the courts as we speak. The fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments have already been trampled on to one degree or another.

I'm curious what exactly your talking about here. I find right wingers tend to lie and exaggerate about when our freedoms are threatened but as written I hope they don't manage that.

Freedom of worship should have been trampled long ago. I agree the fourth, fifth and sixth have been trampled to one degree or another. I don't see a lot of Right Wingers bitching about Gitmo though and even today their problem with the NSA seems to clearly be more a problem with Obama than over reach.

Your argument based on 'common sense' is basically the legal tenet of law based on precedence and law based on precedence is always bad law. It is like drilling holes in a door, once you drill enough holes that door can no longer be said to exist at all.

If you say so. It seems to have been working just fine for us despite several trampled laws.

 

[StrangeLife]

When you forgo natural right for human right then who ever controls the use of force decides on what a right is and they are denied as easily as they are conferred.

Which is a great argument for not cutting our military budget

 

[Sean Renaud]

Which is a great argument for not cutting our military budget

History would argue otherwise. If you are going to increasingly disarm your population (which is the trend in the modern civilized world) you don't want or need nearly as powerful a police force and/or military for quite obvious reasons.

 

[koalabear]

History would argue otherwise. If you are going to increasingly disarm your population (which is the trend in the modern civilized world) you don't want or need nearly as powerful a police force and/or military for quite obvious reasons.

*points and laughs*
That worked great in Chicago or any other big city, didn't it.

 

[StrangeLife]

History would argue otherwise.

History argues many bad ideas.

If you are going to increasingly disarm your population (which is the trend in the modern civilized world) you don't want or need nearly as powerful a police force and/or military for quite obvious reasons.

How do you figure that to be a "trend"? Gun ownership is at an all time high right now, and we are on the verge of developing 3D printers where anybody basically can download a working gun off ThePirateBay.

 

[Sean Renaud]

History argues many bad ideas.

While the actual facts would argue that if your government wants you dead, you die end of story most people in America would tell you that at least part of the argument for us being armed is defense against a tyrannical government. Why the if you start disarming the populace would you want a stronger military?!

How do you figure that to be a "trend"? Gun ownership is at an all time high right now, and we are on the verge of developing 3D printers where anybody basically can download a working gun off ThePirateBay.

Gun ownership is NOT at an all time high according to any of the polls. It's at an all time low. And we've already got 3D printers that can make working guns, wait a few years and watch how heavily they regulate the hell out of that. Even if they don't and the trend reverses gun control in America and the world has been increasing steadily for decades. It's simply the way of the civilized world.

 

[koalabear]

While the actual facts would argue that if your government wants you dead, you die end of story most people in America would tell you that at least part of the argument for us being armed is defense against a tyrannical government. Why the if you start disarming the populace would you want a stronger military?!



Gun ownership is NOT at an all time high according to any of the polls. It's at an all time low. And we've already got 3D printers that can make working guns, wait a few years and watch how heavily they regulate the hell out of that. Even if they don't and the trend reverses gun control in America and the world has been increasing steadily for decades. It's simply the way of the civilized world.

Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993

Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

 

[Byron In Exile]

And at that point in time it can be said that there are no rights at all. Merely a system of "Hall Passes" that the teacher can confer or deny based on a whim.

The rejected EU Constitution was a classic example of that. It had a 'Bill of Rights' two pages long and reflected a laundry list of every liberals wet dreams. But buried in the body of the constitution was a small clause that said the state could modify or abate those 'rights' at any time they chose to do so, for any reason they could make up.

Pretty much.

 

[eyer]

Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993

Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

47% of American adults arm themselves as encouraged by the Second Amendment...

...interesting: that means that almost without exception (relatively speaking in regards to 100+ million armed in relation to actual irresponsible gun injuries/deaths and outright assaults and murders , of course), Americans are - in fact - extremely responsible with their weapons

It'd be neat to see a further breakdown highlighting the percentage of rural American adults who arm themselves...

...(that's a heads-up to dan000000000000000000000000000 to start searching for all the gnat sh!t he can find to defame those good folks who revere the 2nd).

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

47% of American adults arm themselves as encouraged by the Second Amendment...

...interesting: that means that almost without exception (relatively speaking in regards to 100+ million armed in relation to actual irresponsible gun injuries/deaths and outright assaults and murders , of course), Americans are - in fact - extremely responsible with their weapons

It'd be neat to see a further breakdown highlighting the percentage of rural American adults who arm themselves...

...(that's a heads-up to dan000000000000000000000000000 to start searching for all the gnat sh!t he can find to defame those good folks who revere the 2nd).

Responsible isn't a metric.

 

[eyer]

Responsible isn't a metric in my world.

Understood...

...SgtShultz.

 

[StrangeLife]

While the actual facts would argue that if your government wants you dead, you die end of story most people in America would tell you that at least part of the argument for us being armed is defense against a tyrannical government. Why the if you start disarming the populace would you want a stronger military?!

Because if what you say is true nationally it will be equally true internationally, right? Considering that the military's primary function is defending our international interests, our military strength must therefore be a match for any imaginable external force - even if the entire planet was to gang up on us. Our own gun-population has nothing to do with our military needs.

Gun ownership is NOT at an all time high according to any of the polls. It's at an all time low.

Depends on the agenda of the people making the polls. The fact is that gun-sales went up during the Bush administration (because everybody feared Osama bin Laden hiding under the bed) and has continued to rise during Obama's reign (because people fear that he'll take a way our right to bear arms).

And we've already got 3D printers that can make working guns, wait a few years and watch how heavily they regulate the hell out of that.

To claim that we have 3D printers is like the Wright Brothers claiming to have jet liners. Somebody did make a plastic gun that fired a round, but it was mostly a proof of concept, I think.

In a few decades however this technique will be able to manufacture complex objects in any material, and they'll be all over the place like todays laser printers. It will not be possible for any country to regulate the use of them without seriously hurting the economy. This will be especially interesting for Europeans, who finally gets the opportunity to unplug from the Matrix and arm themselves.

It's simply the way of the civilized world.

It's the way of cattle herding. Cut off the balls and the bull is easy to manage...