# Constitutional Rights



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2007)

When browsing threads, I rarely notice in which forum the topic is listed. I see the title of the thread and if it looks interesting, I post. 

One theme that I have recurred here. 

'gun owners' have often made the claim that it is the Second Amendment that makes the others possible ... and yet, the other Amendments have been abused, curtailed, infringed, and broken ... and we hear nothing about that from the 'gun owners'. 

Are the gun-owners 'one-issue' citizens?


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> When browsing threads, I rarely notice in which forum the topic is listed. I see the title of the thread and if it looks interesting, I post.
> 
> One theme that I have recurred here.
> 
> ...



A lot of them are, very much like Prolife/Prochoicers. 

My wifes Grandma is very pro-life, and is a one issue voter. She explains, "If the canidate doesn't respect life, then I can't vote for them." To her, she believes that abortion is taking a life. So, for a canidate to be pro choice, she believes that person is not choosing to respect life, and respecting life is her most basic principle of which everything else falls under.

I, of course, believe that this is very 1-dimensional, and we know that pro-choice doesn't have to mean pro-abortion, so need to debate her position. I am using this as an analogy because it is fitting for understanding the "one issue voter."

Like my grandma and abortion, many gun owners believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental principle in which other principles fall under. Many believe that the right to bear arms is the same as granting someone the right to the means of self-defense, and the right to defend oneself and ones community. Many believe that all individual freedoms stem from the freedom of self-protection. For people who think along these lines,  2nd amendment rights become the single issue  in which  all other issues fall under.

So yes, some gun owners are 1 issue voters. I, as well as most others, are not. Never-the-less, I still warrent 2nd amendment rights as very important and fundamental (though not singular).


----------



## Big Don (Nov 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> When browsing threads, I rarely notice in which forum the topic is listed. I see the title of the thread and if it looks interesting, I post.
> 
> One theme that I have recurred here.
> 
> ...


So, are you saying it has gone far enough and gun owners should stage an armed insurrection? Because, that is the reason for the second amendment.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 2, 2007)

Big Don said:


> So, are you saying it has gone far enough and gun owners should stage an armed insurrection? Because, that is the reason for the second amendment.


 
I have heard people who are vocal defenders of the Second Amendment intimate that they would do so. 

How does that bumper sticker read?  "You can have my gun when you take it from my cold dead hands." 

What does that mean, really? 
Oh, I don't give a **** about free press, and you can practice any version of Protestant Christianity you wish, and those who break the law are obviously guilty, so lock 'em up and keep 'em locked up, unless you're just going to execute them, which is probably a better idea anyhow, and you know what, else, as long as I can buy 17 hand guns at once, I really don't care if the government is the only source for information about what is happening in the world, because, a government that will let me keep my weapons, obviously wouldn't have any other agenda, and what's the big deal about Uncle Sam listening in on the phone calls of bad guys, anyway? ​I am not encouraging a revoltion ~ even if a little revolution is good every now, and again ~ I am just pointing out that those who say they get sick thinking about what could happen to gun rights have similarly claimed their right to keep and bear arms is the one thing that guaranteed the other nine amendments to the Constitution. 

Except, not so much.


----------



## thardey (Nov 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I have heard people who are vocal defenders of the Second Amendment intimate that they would do so.
> 
> How does that bumper sticker read?  "You can have my gun when you take it from my cold dead hands."
> 
> ...



"Remember, Remember, the 5th of November . . . ."


The loss of the 2nd amendment is not enough cause for revolution, the loss of the rest of the Bill of Rights . . . well, that could do it.

The problem I see, and this conversation helped me to see it more clearly, is that the polarization of the rights falls, not along party lines, but along two lines of thinking:

A.) If we lose our rights, we won't have any way to get them back/protect them without our guns.

B.) If we spend as much time protecting our "other" rights, we won't need our guns, because we won't need a revolution.

But the whole government was built (IMO) on the idea that people in power are not trustworthy, so checks and balances have to be set.

The 2nd Amendment is one of the checks to protect the other amendments. But not the only one. It should be the last resort only. But, like Michael pointed out, (but I may be reading into it) what's the point of having guns if you've given up all the other rights voluntarily?

On the other hand, history has shown that at certain times, diplomatic solutions fail. After that, force, or the threat of force, may be the only option left.

-------

Now I'm going way off into left field, just sort of thinking out loud, so bear with me, or skip this if you want.

Question:
If: You start with the basic idea that the 2nd Amendment was _primarily_ put into place to protect the citizens from the government.

Then: The structure of our law-enforcement system (namely the idea that, citizens are responsible to prevent crime, the government is responsible to punish it), is form of protection for citizens from the government.

Because: If citizens did not have the right to defend themselves, that responsibility would fall on the government's shoulders. In order to prevent crime, many of our other rights would be lost in the name of prevention. We are seeing that now, and throughout our short history as a nation.

Currently is the wire-tapping issue. The argument is that the people rely on the government to prevent terrorist attacks, so some people are willing to relinquish that right to privacy, which is necessary to keep them safe.

Now, take that argument and apply it to a personal level. Would we be willing to allow random searches of our property if we believed that we had no right to defend ourselves, but that the government needed to do so to protect us from robbers and muggers and rapists?

I wouldn't.

So, in keeping our rights to self-defense, (of which a gun is the icon, and the means), we are actually protecting ourselves from the need of the government to violate our rights as Americans. It is not so much that we are using our guns _against_ the government, but in cooperation with it.

It's only a thought I had just now, so it's not a firmly held belief or anything, and I'm sure there are things I haven't taken into account. But I thought I'd throw it out there.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> When browsing threads, I rarely notice in which forum the topic is listed. I see the title of the thread and if it looks interesting, I post.
> 
> One theme that I have recurred here.
> 
> ...


 

In many cases, yes. 

As to why this is: I cannot speak for anyone else but myself, and the views are expressed here will be claimed to belong solely to me and no others.

I will begin at the beginning. I begin with the assumption that the right of self-defense exists. There exist many in the world who do not. This entry is not for them.
Also let us cast aside affiliations of this or that political party on the issue and merely look at the issue itself as that is all that interests me and all that is relevant to this entry.
It's very easy to understand my beliefs about this issue once I have explained them to you:

The first point of my central belief system is centered on the premise that every human being has rights. You may, if you wish, say that they come from a god, or from nature, or from written law, as suits your preference, but the underlying premise is that they are THERE, irrespective of their form.

The second point is that whatever the number of rights one possesses, they all stem from the right to EXIST, and to try to preserve that existence. This is simple brain-dead logic; one can neither possess nor exercise ANY rights if one does not exist.
Now , the last time I tried explaining this to someone who was less interested in hearing my view as in ridiculing it, this is the point at which I had this incredibly intelligent person interrupt me with"Yeah, well y'know what? Y'know what?....."
He waited for me to say "what". I thought that was cute....ly retarded.
"Yeah, y'know what? But you just said everybody had the right to exist, so if you shoot 'em that's hypocrisy, so you're just as bad, yeah, so there".
So I will answer that here as well: 
No.
It is not "Just as bad, yeah, so there."
Self-defense is NOT the moral equivalent of homicide.
The person defending themselves from death or grievous bodily harm has not made the same decision as the person who has already demonstrated the ability, opportunity and intent to kill him/her. 
The concept that both these people should be held to the same standard should be self-evident in its sheer ludicrousness.
How does my belief system tie into this? It ties into this because when a person decides to make an unjustified attempt to remove another person's right to exist( in plain English this is called assaulting or murdering them), that person has chosen to arrogate to themselves a right that they do not possess, and in so doing sacrifices their right to exist that the innocent person who has done NO wrong, and deserves to live, may live.

The third point is that therefore, in order to attempt to preserve one's existence, one must know of, and have available, and have ready, the means to resist attempts to jeopardize one's existence. Learning how to use one's body will only take one so far, and address the threat only to a certain point on the threat range.. Learning weapons driven only by leverage and muscle power will broaden one's area of defense as well, but the fact remains that in the modern era the main and most effective such weapon is the firearm, whether one likes it or not.

Which brings us to the fourth point, and that is that therefore, those who support "gun control" as I define the term, are attempting to impose their will on those of us who do not, in a way that would strip me of the primary modern means of preserving my existence, and therefore, whether they realize it or not, are--for all practical intents and purposes--without even knowing my name, my background, my intent or my need-- trying to kill me, whether this is conscious in their mind or not.

Sometimes a thing really IS "just that simple."

As to whether this is the only right I care about: No. I'm not only pro-Second Amendment, I'm pro the entire Bill Of Rights. All of it. But this perhaps may make it clearer to you as to why I place the gun issue "first among equals" as it were.

As to "left" versus "right"--IMO BOTH sides are a lost cause at this point. So polarized have both sides, and by extension, the lackeys of both sides, become, that whoever wins, we lose. This is apparently our fate, since obviously, far too many Americans are too stupid to reject what the media wants and choose candidates they don't cover.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I have heard people who are vocal defenders of the Second Amendment intimate that they would do so.
> 
> How does that bumper sticker read?  "You can have my gun when you take it from my cold dead hands."
> 
> ...



It just depends on where peoples line in the sand is.

For some, you pass the patriot act and takes away some civil liberties for those it effects. O.K., that is something we can use our government system and process to change.

But, if you take away the right to self-defense? Some believe that this is where we truly cross into totalitarianism, and where using our government process is no longer effective. For some that line is simply to thick to cross. Because of this logic, 2nd amendment rights come first.

I personally don't think that these things are that black/white which is why I am not a 1 issue voter, but I can't help but agree with the point.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 2, 2007)

TO clarify a point:

I am not a 1 issue voter because I realize that the intention of most "anti-gun" people is not to take away the right to self-defense, and the right to exist, even though by taking away your means of self-defense that becomes the end result. So I don't believe that when someone wants a waiting period, that they are trying to take away my right to exist and move towards totalitarianism. I just think that most "anti-gun" folks simply don't understand or don't agree with the reasoning behind the second amendment. I don't think that they are trying to turn us into a police state.

So, I look at other issues as well, even though this is a primary issue for me.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 2, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> TO clarify a point:
> 
> I am not a 1 issue voter because I realize that the intention of most "anti-gun" people is not to take away the right to self-defense, and the right to exist, even though by taking away your means of self-defense that becomes the end result. So I don't believe that when someone wants a waiting period, that they are trying to take away my right to exist and move towards totalitarianism. I just think that most "anti-gun" folks simply don't understand or don't agree with the reasoning behind the second amendment. I don't think that they are trying to turn us into a police state.
> 
> So, I look at other issues as well, even though this is a primary issue for me.


 
I must also clarify a point: In my earlier post, I was speaking not only of anti gunners intent but also of the unintended consequences of what they *think* they're asking for. And we all know what the road to hell is paved with, don't we.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 2, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> In many cases, yes.
> 
> As to why this is: I cannot speak for anyone else but myself, and the views are expressed here will be claimed to belong solely to me and no others.
> 
> ...


 
First --- before I read any further ... please put some skin and bones on this straw man. 

Who does not believe there is a right to self-defense? 

Based upon what statement or actions are you basing your interpretation of your beliefs?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> First --- before I read any further ... please put some skin and bones on this straw man.
> 
> Who does not believe there is a right to self-defense?


 
The UN, for one:


http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_hr_report_2006.pdf 


*Quote:20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a &#8220;right&#8221;. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.*

That was the quote I drew upon at the time I first wrote that entry. Doesn't qualify to me as a "straw man", though I realize you may disagree. But there's your answer.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 2, 2007)

I wasn't aware that the United Nations had the right to vote, or the ability write legislation for the United States of America. 


Please describe the difference is between the two descriptions. 

A) - A right
B) - A means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another

I am not certain I see a tactical difference.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 2, 2007)

I don't think it is so much that people don't believe that self-defense is not a right, I think it is more so the case that (a) people don't see the connection between self-defense and the 2nd amendment. Also, (b) people don't always agree on how far self-defense extends.

I'll explain further:

(a) People don't see that the right to bear arms is inherently necessary to the preservation of the right to self-defense. The reason is because for someone to exercise a right, they have to be allowed the means to do so. I couldn't tell someone that they have the right to free speech while taping their mouth shut and removing all means of allowing that persons views to be heard. The same is true with self-defense. The only thing that will reasonably equalize the threat of a weapon is a firearm. The only thing that will allow a physically weaker person (like an elderly or handicapped person, lets say) to defend against a lethal threat is a firearm. And as it applies to governmental tyranny, the only thing that would reasonably allow us to fight back if (heaven forbid) we had a tyrannical ruler (from our country or an invading one) would be firearms.

Because of the reasons above, bearing arms is an absolute necessity for preserving our right to self-defense, and our right to self-defense is an absolute necessity for preserving our right to exist. Doing things to infringe on our right to bear arms is directly proportional to not respecting our liberties and freedoms of self-defense, and our freedoms to exist and pursue life, liberty, and happiness as a whole.

Although I realize that some just don't agree with the above, I believe that unfortunatily, most "anti-gun" people simply don't see the connections I just made above. I blame the politicians for this, mostly. They have a wonderful opportunity to talk about this, and really show that they are standing up for our freedoms when this issue comes up. But instead, the politicize the issue for one, and for two they only talk about recreational shooting, and how they're hunters too, and so forth. They don't have the balls to talk about the elephant in the room; that elephant being that the 2nd amendment isn't really about hunting, but it is about preserving the right to self-defense.

(b) People don't agree with how far this right to self-defense extends. What you have is 2 conflicting social standpoints. For the sake of simplicity, I'll put a label on the 2 "camps." I will try to explain these without putting a negative spin on either. You have the collectivists, and you have the individualists.

*Individualists* come from the perspective of our founding fathers. Personal freedom and responsibility is their guiding principle. They believe that everyone has to take personal responsibility as an individual for  themselves, their families, their property, and their neighbors and community. The central or federal government, to them, is something that needs to be kept small, with resposibilities broken up by states and communities. The indiviudalists feel that this gives them the most "voice" and control over their own environment. The federal government is really only there to keep us safe, and to protect our freedoms. Anything that extends beyond that duty is an overextension of power. Further, Governments need to be tightly controlled, watched, and never blindly trusted. This is due to the simple fact that people not only make mistakes, but also get greedy and self-interested when they get powerful. So checks and balances must be maintained. 

From this standpoint, individualists believe that self-defense is first and foremost the right and responsibility of the individual. It is up to me to protect myself, my family, my property, and my community. It is up to me to take the proper measures to do this. That means a variety of implications that are up to the individual to pursue; from behaving in a safe manner to having insurance and alarm systems to carrying a firearm to volunteering as a firefighter or reserve police or joining a neighborhood watch program. The police serve to enforce laws, not defend individuals. So, for the individualist, self-defense extends far passed the immediate circumstance of "what if I get attacked." It extends to "what if my neighbor gets attacked" and "can I take up arms against an invasion or violent crime?" For the individualist, "self-defense" extends far beyond "self," and  having the right to bear arms is impairative to this ideal.

_*Collectivists *_have a different guiding principle; and that is that of a collective good. The belief of the collectivist is that since we are all social animals and rely on each other, that the decisions of mankind need to be directed towards a collective good. "It takes a village" is an overlaying belief. Collectivists generally push for a larger federal government and more centralization to be able to make decisions for a greater good. Collectivists don't mind paying more taxes, if it means that more will get taken care of in return for the betterment of everyone.  

From this standpoint, the collectivist is more apt to rely on the government to take care of certain responsabilities; and self-defense becomes key in this. Essentially, collectivists are willing to trade a right (like the right to carry a firearm) in exchange for what they believe is a greater good like public safety or protection or a public service. So, for a collectivist, it makes sense to regulate firearms, even strictly. If we can regulate firearms and that results in less crime, then that makes sense to them(even though we know this isn't true due to evidence). And this trade off is O.K. because a collectivist would ordinarily never even think of needing to protect the community or a neighbor or anything outside of themselves, because the police or military will take care of that. Giving up this right or responsibility becomes  justifiable if it is for a greater good.

And some collectivist will take this pretty far into extreme pacifism; even as far enough to believe that self-defense is really not a right, because by defending yourself you are having to bring violence to someone else, and/or  defending you is the responsibility of the government or society.

So, this becomes the issue. Most people fall somewhere between these two "camps," but where one falls will determine the boundries of 'self-defense.' If you believe that defending yourself, your family, and society is a personal responsability, then the right to bear arms is impairative. If you believe that  self-defense doesn't extend as far and that the state needs to step in and take that responsibility, then you may be willing to regulate firearms for a greater good.

I, of course, stand more with the individualists. Although we are social beings, we need to preserve our rights and freedoms, and take personal responsability for ourselves and what goes on around us. By doing this, we will be doing something for a greater good. By trying to regulate according to a "greater good," 'good' becomes subjective and can lead us to oppression and tyranny


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I wasn't aware that the United Nations had the right to vote, or the ability write legislation for the United States of America.


 
Well, that's the very problem--it sure as hell *thinks* it does--twice in a row, the UN tried unsuccessfully to force the US to become a signatory to a global gun ban treaty, enforceable by the UN on US soil.

Just to add insult to injury, the second occasion they tried this was held on the 4th of July no less.

If that doesn't give you some perspective on just how arrogant they've really become then I'm really not sure what would.

But apart from their wishing to meddle in US politics that is perhaps better suited to another thread.





> Please describe the difference is between the two descriptions.
> 
> A) - A right
> B) - A means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another
> ...


 
that is an excellent question--for whoever decided to put them in the same paragraph as it was written and tried to distinguish them. I try not to wonder what's going on in such peoples' minds--figure I'll stay sane that way.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 2, 2007)

I find it baffling that you can not describe the functional difference in the language you use to defend an accusation of a straw man. And yet you continue to rail against that language. 

If there is no discernable difference in the language above (A vs B), then why get so riled up?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 2, 2007)

I'm not riled up. You asked me what incident I drew from which led me to believe many people did not believe in the right to self defense. I showed it to you. This additional questioning is of your making. 

The language speaks for itself--They state self defense is an excuse for violating the "rights" of another, who by definition, if one is defending oneself from their actions, has already chosen not to respect that person's rights to begin with, that "self-defense" is not a right and cannot be used as an "excuse".


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 2, 2007)

Andy Moynihan, I do not believe your understanding and interpretation of the language you quote is very inaccurate.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 2, 2007)

First off, Hannity is wrong.

Chicago has tougher gun laws than New York.

I like Brak.  I really do.  BUTTTTT....I don't trust any Democrat from Illinois to do whats right by the 2nd amendment.  The track record in this state is attrocious, and getting worse.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I find it baffling that you can not describe the functional difference in the language you use to defend an accusation of a straw man. And yet you continue to rail against that language.
> 
> If there is no discernable difference in the language above (A vs B), then why get so riled up?



Not to jump into this too much (because I won't be able to follow up as I'll be out of town anyway), but the thing that bothers me about "B" is "a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another" part. The implication could be taken as "self-defense" is really just an excuse to violate the rights of another. 

I don't know how they mean it because it isn't my quote so I am not sure of the context. But I do know that some people, particularly in countries where people have no gun rights, believe that carrying a weapon somehow violates the rights of others to be safe. Obviously this is illogical, as my weapon could make others more safe, less safe, or have no effects depending on my actions. However, some rationalize in this manner. Knowing this and seeing a quote and knowing that some UN members have been in support of a worldwide ban, I find this very disconcerting. 



> First off, Hannity is wrong.
> 
> Chicago has tougher gun laws than New York.
> 
> I like Brak. I really do. BUTTTTT....I don't trust any Democrat from Illinois to do whats right by the 2nd amendment. The track record in this state is attrocious, and getting worse.



Like Hannity, Chicago's gun laws suck horribly. I don't trust Obama at all in regards to 2nd Amendment rights, based on that and things he has said to support the anti-gun movement. 

Although his record is shaky on this issue, Edwards has actually said some good stuff regarding 2nd amendment rights if I were to have to pick a democrate that could potentially win. It's hard to trust based on his record, but who knows? People sometimes think differently when they are looking at presidency vs. other offices.

However, it's a mote point at the moment. Unless Obama and Edwards can somehow close that 20-30% gap in the polls, it'll be Hillary that will be the dems pick.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 4, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Andy Moynihan, I do not believe your understanding and interpretation of the language you quote is very inaccurate.


 
Umm....thanks?

(Sorry I wasn't able to respond yesterday and just caught this, I'm afraid I've been away at drill till now)


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 4, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> So, let's say .....
> 
> When the President of the United States, sets up a chain-link, fenced in area four blocks away from a location where he is about to give a speech, and tells those who wish to peaceably assemble and hold up signs that oppose his position that they may exercise their First Amendment Rights of Freedom of speech "Over There" ... that would be a direct, proportional infringement on not respecting our liberties and freedoms of Free Speech, and our freedoms to persue life, liberty and happiness..


 
Is it?  I've been to a couple of these rallys now, and its not, as you describe here, people peaceably holding up signs, they are screaming and shouting and chanting and swearing... which would be disruptive to the speech.  So saying "you can do it, but over there" is, IMO a fair compromise.

Imagine you were trying to talk to a group of people with a message you thought was important and it went like this:



michaeledward said:


> So, let's say ....


 
SHUTUP YOU SUCK, OFF OF MARTIALTALK NOW!



michaeledward said:


> When the President of the United States, sets up a chain-link, fenced in area four blocks away from a location where he is about to give a speech,


 
BOOOOO!

WHAT DO WE WANT?
NO MORE MICHAELEDWARD!
WHEN DO WE WANT IT?
NOW!



michaeledward said:


> and tells those who wish to peaceably assemble and hold up signs that oppose his position that they may exercise their First Amendment Rights of Freedom of speech "Over There" ...


 
NO MICHAELEDWARD! 
NO OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS
PEACE PEACE PEACE!



michaeledward said:


> that would be a direct, proportional infringement on not respecting our liberties and freedoms of Free Speech, and our freedoms to persue life, liberty and happiness..


 
RAH RAH RAH! 


Admit it, it's obnoxious, stupid, and disruptive.  There's no reason IMO, a compromise in that situation should be considered an infringement on Freedom of speech.  You want to argue about infringement, Id be happy to discuss the tactics they used to arrest people at the Rally in DC in september, where my Nephew was arrested on Felony charges of carring an Incindiary Device because he had a bag of incence sticks.

But thats all off topic.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 4, 2007)

Oh and Mike,

Please don't take those comments personally, they are just direct examples of the kinds of things I have heard at the rallys and I simply substitued your name since I was using your quote as an example.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 4, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> And, lastly, your descriptions of '2 camps' is hardly objective. The biases in your language are obvious to someone familiar with our society. Hell, you even use quotes around the title of a Hillary Clinton book. And then proceed to call any who might fit in that camp a *****. You may call it "extreme pacificsm", but you are not describing Ghandi. You are using the phrase derogatorily.


 
I won't address the issue of free speech as I couldn't have done it better the CryoZombie. But, I see nothing wrong with talking about other civil liberties, and have in the past. Youu can search and find threads in which I was extremely critical of the Patrior Act, for example. As to other "gun folks," I already explained why some are 1 issue voters. You may think that the position of a 1 issue voter is stupid. I don't care, and can't even defend the position because I am not a 1 issue voter myself.

And your attack on my objectivity is plain off base. I didn't call anyone a *****. Some people claim to be "extreme pacifists" and are proud of it. I think that some people fall in one extreme category, some in the other, and most in between somewhere. I happen to lean towards being an individualist.

But what I don't understand is why some people (I have gotten this more then once outside of this thread) who lean towards what I would call collectivism don't simply defend their position. Instead, it is claims that I have miscategorized the argument somehow. If that is the case, enlighten all of us.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 5, 2007)

Paul, this is where bias meets the road. 

You may believe your descriptions were 'objective', from my point of view they were not objective, at all. Your 'individualist' beliefs are loud and clear in your description. 

Now, no doubt, my bias toward socialism might make my interpretation of your language a bit hyper sensative. 

But, you aren't trying to be objective. You are drawing conclusions, as can be seen in the last sentence of your post. 



			
				Cruentus said:
			
		

> By trying to regulate according to a "*greater good*," 'good' becomes subjective and can lead us to oppression and tyranny


 
Objectivity would not spell out a conclusion. Objectivity would provide us with an array of possible outcomes, where you present only one outcome, and it is an outcome that, you yourself, do not claim to be certain; but only that it "can lead us", not that it manifestly "does lead us". 

And certainly, if it spelled out a conclusion on one side of the arguement, it would do so on the other side as well. What is the conclusion of unrestrained "Individualist" tendancies? Chaos? Anarchy? 200,000 small arms deaths per year? 



Who was it who said ... 'We must all stand together, or we shall assuredly all hang seperately"?


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 5, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Paul, this is where bias meets the road.
> 
> You may believe your descriptions were 'objective', from my point of view they were not objective, at all. Your 'individualist' beliefs are loud and clear in your description.
> 
> ...


 
You are right, I did draw a conclusion based on my bias and opinion. I will give you that. I think I provided a decent explination, but my conclusion was definatily my bias.

Your definatily welcome to provide a different conclusion and picture of what you think a more "socialist" (or collectivist) society might be, and I would be happy to listen.

As to individualism, if I were a complete individualist I would be an anarcist, which I am not. I think that the bounds of individual rights and responsibilities are reached when it greatly hinders the safety, security, and freedoms of other individuals. And that is what the Government is there to regulate and protect. And in my opinion, when the government oversteps those responsibilies, I think that collectivism has crossed it's line.

As this applies to firearms, the problem is that gun control does not make people safer, and in fact does the opposite. If lawfully allowing citizens to own and carry firearms created hundreds of thousands of small arms deaths per year then we could have that conversation about reasonab;e 'gun control.' But evidence has shown that is not the case.

C.

PS. As it turns out, I do have some limited access here to the net this week (out of town right now). So I can respond in a limited sense.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 6, 2007)

*Moderator's Note:*

This thread is an accumulation of the off-topic posts from the thread from which it was split.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Senior Moderator


----------



## elder999 (Nov 6, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> When browsing threads, I rarely notice in which forum the topic is listed. I see the title of the thread and if it looks interesting, I post.
> 
> One theme that I have recurred here.
> 
> ...


 
Well, I'm a gun-owner, from quite a few generations of gun owners, and a *strong* supporter of "Second Amendment rights"-I used the quotes because _there is no such thing as a "Constitutional right"_-which have been abused,m curtailed, infringed and broken-just as the others have....frankly, I got a little tired of sounding the alarm on the continuing curtailment of our rights by the governme-I'm not a 'one-issue" citizen by any means, though, as has been pointed out, many Americans are-it's one of the things that's leading to the further curtailment of our rights and increasing governement interference:the manipulation of the citizenry on 'button issues' to the point of utter divisiveness, instead of any cohesion at all....

As far as "gun rights" go, though, they _are_ the primary support of the other rights-at least, that's what the Founders intended:



> Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good"-* George Washington*


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 6, 2007)

For the record, I did not name this thread. When it was spun out, the Moderator titled this thread. 

Here's a question that occurred to me as I noticed this thread split. 

Today, in America, gun owners are a minority of citizens. Off the top of my head, I believe it is somewhere around 25% of Americans that own guns.

When do the actions of those pushing for 'gun rights' become 'affirmative action'? Special protections for a minority population? 

Going back to the original thread, from which this was split ... what would the response be to questions like "President Candidates: Who will be good for gay marriage?" and "Presidential Candidates: Who will be good for minority admissions into colleges?"

It was a thought. 



And ... for the record (as if anyone here didn't know it) ... I am not a gun owner. In my lifetime, I have fired 10 rounds from a .22 rifle at scout camp and nothing more. I do not think the 2nd Amendment and 'Gun Control' are mutually exclusive ideas. And lastly, recently, I have begun to entertain the thought of becoming a hunter. Don't know if I will, but I have had some thoughts about it.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 6, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> For the record, I did not name this thread. When it was spun out, the Moderator titled this thread.
> 
> Going back to the original thread, from which this was split ... what would the response be to questions like "President Candidates: Who will be good for gay marriage?" and "Presidential Candidates: Who will be good for minority admissions into colleges?"


 
Well, the pundits and talking heads on CNN and *not* news....er, I mean, _Fox News_ do that every day-if there's an issue, they discuss the candidates stance on it, and the candidates themselves discuss it as well.....don't really see what your issue with the asking is.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 6, 2007)

Just thinking about gun owners as a minority.
Just thinking about majority rule. 

And the confluence of those two ideas. 

Seems that sometimes, minorities are decried as demanding special rights. Would that describe the question from the original post. "Which president will protect this minorities rights  ... even if it is against the majority of citizens". 

Just thinking .... that's all.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 6, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Just thinking about gun owners as a minority.
> Just thinking about majority rule.
> 
> And the confluence of those two ideas.
> ...


 
seems to me that if things keep going the way they are, gun-owners won't be a "minority" much longer......just thinking.....that's all.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 6, 2007)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/28/staggering-report-90-gun_n_62178.html

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/numbers.html

25% is the lowest estimate; estimations vary between that and over 50%. The article I referenced in the second link explains the problem with these stats, and why we don't know for sure.

That said, a large % of citizens own guns (25% is still a large part of the population), so the idea that it is just a few guys running around who want to be armed is not correct if that is what is being proposed.

But even if it were, no one is asking for "special privledges." People just don't want their freedoms infringed upon. The government is supposed to protect these freedoms. The great experiment of America was to protect the rights of the individual through guiding principles, not go with "majority rule."


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 6, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Just thinking about gun owners as a minority.
> Just thinking about majority rule.
> 
> And the confluence of those two ideas.
> ...


 
25% of the population as gun owners does not necessarily mean 75% of the population is against gun ownership. (Although I think the % of households owning guns is higher). I personally think it is one statistic we should never know, for the sake of privacy.

In other news...
The Supreme court is set to decide if they will take the Washington DC case in about a week. As has been determined (correctly) the DC gun ban was unconstitutional - just like all gun bans.

If I may quote ol' Ben, "Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security."


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 6, 2007)

About 25% of the population use tobacco in smoke form. A decade ago, this group probably didn't think that it was a 'special privlege' to have a smoke with their dinner and dessert

And ... I don't think anything is being proposed with my comments. Just observations. 

Minorities, in general, don't do well in most societies (Ask the Sunni's in Iraq). Our system of governance, from its founding, was predicated on protecting the rights of minorities (small states v large states). That seems to be in jeopardy these days.

But, in this country, a minority of citizens own firearms. And, the last three posts, anyhow, seem to demonstrate a bit of fiestiness over this fact. 

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=234

Gun owners don't act like a minority ... wonder what would happen if the Majority of non-gun owners started acting like the majority.


----------



## Ray (Nov 6, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> About 25% of the population use tobacco in smoke form. A decade ago, this group probably didn't think that it was a 'special privlege' to have a smoke with their dinner and dessert


however, more than one non-smoker didn't think it should have to be a special privelege to not have smoke with their dinner and dessert.


michaeledwad said:


> Minorities, in general, don't do well in most societies (Ask the Sunni's in Iraq). Our system of governance, from its founding, was predicated on protecting the rights of minorities (small states v large states). That seems to be in jeopardy these days.
> 
> But, in this country, a minority of citizens own firearms. And, the last three posts, anyhow, seem to demonstrate a bit of fiestiness over this fact.
> 
> Gun owners don't act like a minority ... wonder what would happen if the Majority of non-gun owners started acting like the majority.


If the minority owns the guns, or the minority controls the availability of resources then the majority gets ruled by the minority (or shot, or starved).


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 6, 2007)

That seems to be the second time in this modified thread, that someone has chosen the language of aggression (or threat) to discuss the subject. 

Isn't that interesting?


----------



## dart68 (Nov 6, 2007)

There was also a time when the "majority" of people thought that slavery was ok.  Just because a majority thinks one way doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do or that is how it should be.

No matter what the percentage of people that are considered gun owners, it is a right that is enumerated in our highest written law.  The second amendment doesn't mandate that you own a firearm.  It only forbids laws that infringe on possessing them.  That's the difference.  The constitution says that I *may* possess a firearm.  That the choice is mine to make.  But if you pass laws banning the possession of firearms, then you make that decision for me without my consent.


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 6, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Gun owners don't act like a minority ... wonder what would happen if the Majority of non-gun owners started acting like the majority.


 
Have a look at California and Massachusetts for a start. Looks like majority rule there trampled the rights of the minority.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 6, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> Have a look at California and Massachusetts for a start. Looks like majority rule there trampled the rights of the minority.


 

Willing to bet that was the _minority_ rule of politicians...


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 7, 2007)

Grenadier said:


> *Moderator's Note:*
> 
> This thread is an accumulation of the off-topic posts from the thread from which it was split.
> 
> ...


 
Along with my On topic post.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 7, 2007)

As for rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I will point out that many of those rights are predicated on an earlier right, first acknowleged in the 'Great Writ'; the right of Habeus Corpus.

This protection guaranteed a detained person, a hearing before an independent person or panel, to ensure the accused is paired correctly with the accusation.

This right has taken a beating recently ~ you may have heard.

Our form of government was created specifically by and for the 'consent of the governed'. If the governed decide to change some aspect of our government, are they not allowed to do so? 


Again, this thread was split from another. And in that thread, an argument was raised concerning as to whether something was a 'right' or 'justifiable'. In that thread, I directed the posters to the legal framework being used to make that determination. Something most other people ignored (in my opinion). 

In this thread, dart68 draws from the source material, to support his point of view. The irony of dart68's first point ~ that slavery at one time was not just "ok" with people, but enabled in our Constitution, and that the 'highest written law' in our country *was changed* by the majority of people (at great cost e.g. the Civil War), seems to be missed. 


It seems to me, that some of the attitudes displayed in this thread bear a striking resemblence to Judge Roy Moore's stone.


----------



## Ray (Nov 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> That seems to be the second time in this modified thread, that someone has chosen the language of aggression (or threat) to discuss the subject.
> 
> Isn't that interesting?


Hopefully this doesn't refer to my post which was just above your post.  If it does, I find your interpretation interesting since there was no threat just a restatement of "those who have the gold make the rules."


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> As for rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I will point out that many of those rights are predicated on an earlier right, first acknowleged in the 'Great Writ'; the right of Habeus Corpus.
> 
> This protection guaranteed a detained person, a hearing before an independent person or panel, to ensure the accused is paired correctly with the accusation.
> 
> ...


 
Absolutely.  But are you now saying that majority can make laws banning the right to free speech, or freedom of religion?  And can do so without modifying the U.S. Constitution? 

I believe there is a Constitutional process to change the Constitution.  And it requires the majority of ALL states to amend.  The actions of a state (or its citizens alone) should not be able to trump a right expressly enumerated within the Bill of Rights, which is exactly what is being done.  Nearly all of the laws curtailing the ownership of firearms are being done on the state level, not a federal (ie. U.S. Constitutional) level.  

If the majority of states want to amend the U.S. Constitution to say that firearm ownership is not a right, then there really can be no argument as to that legallity.  But again, that is not the case.


----------



## crushing (Nov 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> As for rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I will point out that many of those rights are predicated on an earlier right, first acknowleged in the 'Great Writ'; the right of Habeus Corpus.
> 
> This protection guaranteed a detained person, a hearing before an independent person or panel, to ensure the accused is paired correctly with the accusation.
> 
> *This right has taken a beating recently ~ you may have heard.*


 
I'm not sure where you are going with this.  Is this part of the justification to apply a beating to the 2nd Amendment?

One doesn't need to be a gun owner to support "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", just as one doesn't have to be religious, speak out, operate a press, or conduct a peaceful assembly to support the 1st Amendment.

The end of slavery wasn't a result of overturning or beating down of any of the Bill of Rights.  The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery, but there was nothing in the constitution previous to then that made it "the right of the people to keep and use slaves."

As for the whole minority v. majority aspect.  I always took the Bill of Rights as something to protect the minority from the majority and the government.  I'd hate to see any tinkering with that.  Whether it be through the amendment process, or by new interpretations of the wording of the 2nd Amendment that turns it into a restriction imposed on the people or as a right granted to the government.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 7, 2007)

Ray said:


> Hopefully this doesn't refer to my post which was just above your post. If it does, I find your interpretation interesting since there was no threat just a restatement of "those who have the gold make the rules."


 
Ray, it does. Your post seems to be implying that those with the guns can shoot those without the guns. 

If that was not your intent, it was less than clear, to me at least.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 7, 2007)

"Both the oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." - Aristotle


----------



## Ray (Nov 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Ray, it does. Your post seems to be implying that those with the guns can shoot those without the guns.
> 
> If that was not your intent, it was less than clear, to me at least.


Those with guns "can" shoot those without guns easier than visa versa; they "shouldn't" but look around.

That said, I live in a rural area where people hunt.  People my age used to take their rifles to school because, after school, they'd hunt.  But most of the gun owners are responsible.  I believe in the right to bare arms, and I interpret as possessing weapons for protection against enemies and tyrants from within and without;  I don't hunt, I don't target practice - in fact I don't even own a gun.

Someone else mentioned the idea that the majority couldn't modify our constitutional freedoms without our consent.  I have to ask about "hate speech" laws.  "Hate speech" is terrible and (I think), there are laws against it in some places.  While you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater, sure the "hate speech" stuff is limiting the constitutional right of free speech?  BTW: I don't condone "hate speech" and don't think I'm participating in it.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 7, 2007)

The method of altering the Constitution is prescribed within the document itself. 

Two-thirds of the legislators in each house must vote in favor of a suggested change. Then three-quarter of the several State's legislatures must then ratify the suggested change. 

And, while one poster suggested that owning of slaves was never an enumerated right within our founding documents. The Constitution of the United States does specifically spell out that slaves were used as a method of calculating the population of a State for representation in the lower body of our Congress. 

It seems odd that an Amendment to the Constitution would be required to revoke something, unless that thing existed. 

Ray, I am agnostic on guns, myself. Which may be why this thread ~ and those that spawned it are so interesting to me. Those arguing in favor of the Second Amendment rights are, mostly, using rhetoric of an oppressed minority and religious fervor; 

For reference ... Monadnock says we citizens should never know how many guns are owned in America ... it is a subject of privacy. Is not privacy the underlying idea behind a woman reproductive choices? How do those arguments proceed? 

(Not attempting to alter the topic, here, just to reference how we all sometimes choose which idea or principle we are going to use to defend a position. ... And how we sometimes ignore that same idea or principle when discussing a different topic).


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> For reference ... Monadnock says we citizens should never know how many guns are owned in America ... it is a subject of privacy. Is not privacy the underlying idea behind a woman reproductive choices? How do those arguments proceed?
> 
> (Not attempting to alter the topic, here, just to reference how we all sometimes choose which idea or principle we are going to use to defend a position. ... And how we sometimes ignore that same idea or principle when discussing a different topic).


 
Private ownership of legal items vs. private murder are apples and oranges. (Not to derail the thread, but if the whole point of this is to show hypocracy then the examples need to be somewhat related.)

A better example would be medical records in general. They are nobody's business and I would fervently defend the right to keep those private just as much as I would the number of guns someone owns.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 7, 2007)

What I find amazing is when people in one sense will want to use the fact that we need to protect minority rights (as in habeous corpus and free speech and so forth) to support ideas that they are comfortable with, but will then use "majority rules" to try to justify trouncing on the rights of the minority when dealing with ideas that are uncomfortable, like gun rights.

Such arguements exhibit no intellectual integrity.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 7, 2007)

"trouncing" Paul? 

"no intellectual ingetrity".

Really?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 7, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> What I find amazing is when people in one sense will want to use the fact that we need to protect minority rights (as in habeous corpus and free speech and so forth) to support ideas that they are comfortable with, but will then use "majority rules" to try to justify trouncing on the rights of the minority when dealing with ideas that are uncomfortable, like gun rights.
> 
> Such arguements exhibit no intellectual integrity.


 
And ... the right of habeus corpus is not a 'minority right'. It is a universal right that applies to any and all individuals in our system of jurisprudence.



EDIT - Incidently, I do not mean to imply that currently the 2nd Amendment extends 'minority rights', either. Rather, I am pointing out that a minority of citizens currently exercise this right. I suppose, even fewer exercise habeus. I wonder how many would miss the 2nd Amendment if they needed, compared to who would miss habeus, if it was needed. - END EDIT


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The method of altering the Constitution is prescribed within the document itself.
> 
> Two-thirds of the legislators in each house must vote in favor of a suggested change. Then three-quarter of the several State's legislatures must then ratify the suggested change.


 
Absolutely.  But what we have is a situation where statel legislatures have enacted state laws restricting / prohibiting the ownership / carrying of firearm without using the Amendment changing process.  And what's even worse, the judicial system is upholding these unconstitutional laws. 

If you look at the purpose behind the writing of the Second Amendment, as can be found in the myriad of writings of the Founding Fathers, for self-defense, including from the government.  And so noone can accuse me of not citing my sources: 

Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samual Adams

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. -- George Washington 

Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense. -- John Adams 

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. -- Alexander Hamilton

Unfortunately, in our "kindler, gentler" world, these principles seem to have no place in the U.S. anymore.

And for those who don't think that gun control can, and often is used to begin to oppress citizens:

A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie. -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Throughout history, one of the steps for ruling, not governing, its citizens is to restrict and disallow the ownership of weapons.  Why should the U.S. government be exempt from this historical fact?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 7, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo, this isn't really a discussion about the purpose or intent of the Second Amendment. Quoting founders sentences from your favorite gun supporting web page, doesn't add to the discussion. And it is nothing we have had around here before. 

As to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I believe the language itself informs us of the founders intent. 

What I am discussing, is how not-reasoned the arguments become when discussing this gun rights. 

This thread came about because the United Nations surveyed its member nations and found that there were no instances where "Self-Defense" was written into the legal frame work of any of the member nations as a 'Right'. The United Nations found among its member states that "Self-Defense" was a sufficient justification to avoid a guilty verdict. "Self-defense" was sufficient justification for taking the life of another ~ in violation of the universal right to life.

I believe there are real differences in these two positions. I believe those differences are subtle and meaningful. And I see some on this board resorting to hyperbole, and talking points in their claims and the report said.

For instance ... our Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to self defense. It guarantees a right to keep and bear arms. If one pays attention to the first part of the Amendment, it is noted that we have this right because a well-regulated militia is required for a free state. That language seems to be telling us that our right to bear arms is in order to defend the state, not the individual.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> 5-0 Kenpo, this isn't really a discussion about the purpose or intent of the Second Amendment. Quoting founders sentences from your favorite gun supporting web page, doesn't add to the discussion. And it is nothing we have had around here before.
> 
> As to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I believe the language itself informs us of the founders intent.
> 
> ...


 
That may have been the original intent of the thread, but it has to some degree turned into such a discussion.  

I find it interesting that you assume that I found my quotes from "my favorite gun supporting web page.  This would seem to be an effort to try to disregard what I am saying because of where I *MAY* have gotten this information from, rather than dealing with what it say in itself.

And your, and others, interpretations of the Second Amendment, although it may be an interesting intellectual exercise, is irrellevant.  When the founders themselves tell us what they meant, your interpretation that the right to bear arms was to "defend the state, and not the individual" is patently false.  Especially if you read the statements of the founders themselves, which says that the individual has these rights.  Re-read the statements by John Adams, George Washington, and James Madison.

And I will agree with you that I think that most people's argumentation relies on emotion, rhetoric, etc., rather than well-reasoned logic.  That's why discussing such issues is often difficult.


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 7, 2007)

Were duels self defense? How many founding fathers were in duels. Seems owning guns goes beyond self defense. :jediduel:


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 7, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> That may have been the original intent of the thread, but it has to some degree turned into such a discussion.
> 
> I find it interesting that you assume that I found my quotes from "my favorite gun supporting web page. This would seem to be an effort to try to disregard what I am saying because of where I *MAY* have gotten this information from, rather than dealing with what it say in itself.
> 
> ...


 
5-0 Kenpo, if you wish to use an appeal to higher authority as a justification for something, I would suggest you not take a single sentence and attach a name to it. If one is going to attempt to justify something based on what someone else said, you really need to provide more context than a single sentence. 

As with most appeals to authority, it is hoped that merely mentioning the names of James Madison and George Washington will be sufficient to end the discussion. 



For instance, let us examine your quote from Mr. Washington, and put it into perspective with today's Republican Party voters. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Republican Party believes itself to be the stronger party when it comes to National Defense. When people vote Republican, it would not be unreasonable to assume that they are voting, in part, for that strong national defense. 

Let's take a closer look at Mr. Washington's statement. 
_A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government._​If a member of today's Republican Party took Mr. Washingtons words to heart, could they possibly, in good conscience, vote for a party that increase the size of the government's military? Can any citizen today meet the threshold laid down for us by Mr. Washington? 

Isn't this appeal to Mr. Washington incoherent for the current day Republican Party? 


No, it seems that by calling out a single sentence, and ascribing it to Mr. Washington, you are not seeking to further debate and discussion, but to shut it down. 


And, where you found these quotes is similarly irrelevant. Maybe you are sitting at home evenings reading the Federalist Papers, and biographies of the founders. I don't know. I think that you didn't pull these quotes from the books on your bookshelf, but rather gathered them from some other source, that has assembled them over time. There is no harm in either. The fact is, that by using these quotes, you are using an 'appeal to higher authority'. Show the reasoning, not just the results of the reasoning.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 8, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> 5-0 Kenpo, if you wish to use an appeal to higher authority as a justification for something, I would suggest you not take a single sentence and attach a name to it. If one is going to attempt to justify something based on what someone else said, you really need to provide more context than a single sentence.
> 
> As with most appeals to authority, it is hoped that merely mentioning the names of James Madison and George Washington will be sufficient to end the discussion.
> 
> ...



There was no appeal to authority.  You said, and I quote, "As to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I believe the language itself informs us of the founders intent."  My reply to you was to quote the founding fathers who stated their intent themselves, making your belief irrelevant.  I was not using them to show that we should or should not be able to own firearms, or to make a position statement.   I was using your own statement about what you believed was the Founder's intent, and showing that the Founder's said otherwise with their very own words.  I wonder how showing you what they actually said in this context is an appeal to authority.

Secondly, you cloud what I said with trying to concern us with what the modern day Republican's interpretation would be.  On that, I am not interested, nor did a make an argument asserting that the Republican view was any better than any others.  It seems to me that you are again trying to detract from my arguement by bringing in erroneous statements, rather dealing with what I have actually said / shown.

But, to your questions anyway.  You seem to be making the assertion that in order to defeat an enemy, ones arms and armaments must be exactly equal to those of said enemy.  In other words, if your enemy has a tank, you must start with a tank, or even a dedicated anti-tank armament in order to defeat the enemy.  Without getting completely off track, history has proved that this in not necessarily the case.  

However, there is a certain level that one must have in order to be able to defeat an enemy.  And history has show us that modern (to the particular era) individual arms is that starting level.  Therefore, one doesn't need arms "equal" to the organized army in order to defeat it.  So lessening our army's technology is unnecessary.  And I would argue that if all citizens were able to own a sufficient level of indiviual arms, they would be able to defeat that army.  And don't 
confuse thier defeat with the physical destruction of the enemy's forces.

And in the same paragraph as stating that where I got my quotes from is irrelevant, you still continue to make you opinion as to where I got the quotes from anyway. A not so subtle form of Ad Hominem perhaps.  


In any event, the Founder's words provide the framework for which they intended the Second Amendment.  We can choose to either honor it or not.  If we feel a need to interpret it, it should be by using that framework.  And, especially in this instance, if we choose to ignore their framework, we do so to our detriment.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 8, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> When do the actions of those pushing for 'gun rights' become 'affirmative action'? Special protections for a minority population?
> 
> Going back to the original thread, from which this was split ... what would the response be to questions like "President Candidates: Who will be good for gay marriage?" and "Presidential Candidates: Who will be good for minority admissions into colleges?"
> 
> It was a thought.


 
Sorry if this has already been addressed, but I had to respond to this.  There's no way that either group--gun owners or anti-gun control advocates--would qualify as a political minority group, at least not in the sense of civil rights.  While the definition of what qualifies as a minority group deserving of special protection isn't exactly crystal clear, neither gun ownership or one's position on gun control would be as fundamental an aspect of one's self as are, say, race, religion, sex, or creed.  This "fundamental self" explanation is, if I correctly recall from my Employment Discrimination course, the reasoning behind what categories are and aren't protected by the Civil Rights Act and Title VII, as opposed to the whole choice explanation (race and sex aren't choices, creed and religion are.)  No matter how hot the political issue of gun ownership may get, it won't become something as "fundamental to self", if you will, to qualify one as a minority member.  

A bit off-topic from the thread, I know, but I had to throw that out there.


----------



## DArnold (Nov 8, 2007)

First off as Therday stated on the first page:

But the whole government was built (IMO) on the idea that people in power are not trustworthy, so checks and balances have to be set.

Sort of correct, however, we are *not* a democracy but a republic as the founders also thought that the common man was not smart enough to govern themselves.

Reguardless of how you define the 2nd amendment people will always want to bend the definitions to what they think.

And if you have ever been the victem of a crime lately, you know the police will not be there to protect you as that is not their job! If you think I'm wrong go read up on the laws.

Just look at seperation of Church and state.
*There is no such thing!*
People are starting to realize a couple of problems:
1) Our laws and founding was based on the church
2) By folowing this precept you are discriminating against the church, and god... we can't have decrimination. (I don't care who you are... that was funny)

A major problem now is people don't know the 14 amendment. We are now becoming a "Mommy" state and expecting the government to protect us.

I don't believe in seat belt laws, smokeing laws, insurance laws...
I also don't believe it is the governments responsability to take care of you when you SCREW UP!
The purpose of the laws is supposed to protect our freedoms.

Look back at history and you will see it is repeating itself. 
Hitler made people so scarred that they would give up their freedoms.
People in power know that if you make people afraid they will do anything you want them to do. When Juliani says, "If you elect a democrat more people will die than if you elect a Republican", this is the politics of fear.

Habeus Corpus is not that old and it was a problem in England when they tried to suspend it. That is the contension in Guantanamo, people are being held without reason as the president has overridden our laws.

But you can allow it because you are afraid. 

The government can wiretap everyone, because you are afraid.

(Does anyone remember that we booted a president out of office for wire tapping?)

Right now the things I am afraid of is
- Fear politics
- Mommy state
- The point when a "Politician" became a career!
- A president who sets himself above the law.

Where did we get the idea that laws are going to solve all our problems!


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 8, 2007)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Sorry if this has already been addressed, but I had to respond to this. There's no way that either group--gun owners or anti-gun control advocates--would qualify as a political minority group, at least not in the sense of civil rights. While the definition of what qualifies as a minority group deserving of special protection isn't exactly crystal clear, neither gun ownership or one's position on gun control would be as fundamental an aspect of one's self as are, say, race, religion, sex, or creed. This "fundamental self" explanation is, if I correctly recall from my Employment Discrimination course, the reasoning behind what categories are and aren't protected by the Civil Rights Act and Title VII, as opposed to the whole choice explanation (race and sex aren't choices, creed and religion are.) No matter how hot the political issue of gun ownership may get, it won't become something as "fundamental to self", if you will, to qualify one as a minority member.
> 
> A bit off-topic from the thread, I know, but I had to throw that out there.



RandomPhantom700 ... the language in this discussion has been, at times, less than clear, and I certainly have been at fault for my part in that.

I was attempting to draw a comparison between a mathematical minority and a political minority. This is not the way the argument is usually framed. 

It appeared to me that some of the arguments of gun owners sound like the arguments of a political minority.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 8, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> And ... the right of habeus corpus is not a 'minority right'. It is a universal right that applies to any and all individuals in our system of jurisprudence.
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT - Incidently, I do not mean to imply that currently the 2nd Amendment extends 'minority rights', either. Rather, I am pointing out that a minority of citizens currently exercise this right. I suppose, even fewer exercise habeus. I wonder how many would miss the 2nd Amendment if they needed, compared to who would miss habeus, if it was needed. - END EDIT


 
Right; I got your meaning by "minority" and I was using it in the same sense. And just like you argue that gun rights only apply to a minority of citizens who own guns, Habeus is only being used by a minority of citizens as well; those going through the justice system.

But, we NEED habeus for a free society right? Or, I could say, "If I am not doing anything wrong, then I don't need to worry about that right because I won't end up needing a fair trial." We have seen that argument in regards to wire tapping before, among other things, haven't we?

Similarly, if we have the right to exist, then we need self-defense to be considered an inalienable right as well. The right to bear arms in a world where arms exist is inseperable to the rights of self-defense.

Yet, only a "minority" of citizens exercise the right to bear arms, and an even bigger minority will ever need to exercise the right of self-defense. But, like Habeus, we need these rights to live in a free society.

So, what I was saying about intellectual integrity is not an attack on you, Micheal. I actually don't know what you are getting at or where you are going with this thread. But I do know that one can't with honesty advocate for one right (like Habaus) which will only be utilized by a smaller part of the population at any given time, but then support the removal of another (like gun rights) with the simple argument that since it won't be utilized by the majority of the population, it therefore wouldn't be missed.

Such an argument, I am thinking, lacks integrity.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 8, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Similarly, if we have the right to exist, then we need self-defense to be considered an inalienable right as well. The right to bear arms in a world where arms exist is inseperable to the rights of self-defense.


 
A logic bridge needs to be built between the two ideas here. 

The right to exist is given and supported by the nation states that compose the United Nations.

If someone was attempting to deprive you of the right to exist, you could deprive that person of their right to exist. 

Is the claim of a 'right' to self-defense, actually the claim to deprive another person to his/her right to exist? 


And ... I don't know that I am convinced that my ability to defend myself is predicated upon the ownership of a firearm. 


So ... first, we need to figure out if defending oneself to the point of eliminating anothers person right to exist qualifies as a 'right'. (Or as the UN Document states, a justification to prevent punishment for the act). 

Then, if self-defense should be qualified as a 'right', why does it follow that a firearm is covered under that 'right'?


----------



## dart68 (Nov 8, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> A logic bridge needs to be built between the two ideas here.
> 
> The right to exist is given and supported by the nation states that compose the United Nations.
> 
> ...


 
The right to self defense only extends to stopping the attacker by whatever reasonable means is necessary.  Should the attacker die as a result of this is ancillary but you don't have the right to kill him.

A firearm is qualified under the right of self defense because for some it may be the only way to reasonably effect self defense.  It is simply a tool but possibly the only one that may equalize a self defense situation.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 8, 2007)

First, not to split hairs here, but an "inalienable" right is given by no one (overlooking any metaphysical arguments here); it is simply a right that all human beings have. The UN or the US or any government for that matter does not grant us these rights; we have these already. They either choose to  recognize them or not, protect them or not, or trounce on them or not. I know this may seem like splitting hairs, but I feel that it is important to be on the same page with this for the discussion.


So, the question is this: is self-defense an inalienable right (and if so what are the boundaries of that right), and where does the right to bear arms fall in line with this?

1. Is self-defense an inalienable right?

I explained this already, but I'll recap. We can assume that A. We have the right to exist. Since A is true, then we can assume that B. We have the right to protect our existence, hence "self-defense." This is a simple A to B conclusion that is true in its most rudimentary form, and most people will not disagree with this.

2. What is the boundaries of the right of self-defense?

Unlike the above supposition, this is where people will vary on agreement and opinion.

Like any right, the boundaries of that right are what is usually argued about. This is easiest to visualize when we look at our free speech rights. Did that person who interrupted the political speech to protest overstep his bounds? Or did the security overstep their bounds by not letting him speak?  Can I tell a dirty joke at my job? Can I yell "fire" in the theater? And so on. You get the idea. These are discussions about boundaries. There aren't many people who will argue against the idea that the freedom to express ideas (free speech) is inalienable. The "right" is usually not what is debated, it is the boundaries of that right that is not always agreed upon.

It is clear that the boundaries of self-defense are where people will disagree. Some people will argue, for example, that you cross the boundary if you kill another in self-defense, regardless of circumstance, because you now infringe on that persons right to exist. I disagree with that, but again, this is a question of boundaries.

So, without going through all the possibilities here, I will simply explain my supposition as to where I think the boundaries of self-defense lie. Keep in mind, that laws may not agree with my supposition; this is just my personal  opinion and philosophical argument on the matter.

Self-defense, as it applies to this discussion, is preventing (or stopping) another living thing (or _person_; we'll not discuss defense against animals and so forth to confuse the issue) from physically harming you (or another person that you are responsible for, but we will leave this out for simplicity as well). You are able to use a reasonable, equalizing force in order to do this. This means that if, let's say, a 12-year-old girl decides to punch and kick at me, I cannot shoot her in the face. This is not a reasonable, equalizing force given the threat. I can, however, restrain her and prevent her from harming me in a manner that would be reasonable and equalizing.

Can one kill or seriously injure another in self-defense? Yes. It is important to note that this isn't the primary goal, and that the goal is to stop the threat. But if death or serious harm occurs as a result of stopping the threat, then this is permitted as long as it was reasonable. This is because a person who is willing to initiate taking away the existence of another forgoes his right to exist and be safe. So, if a person has the ability, opportunity, and intent to cause another significant injury or death, then that person has effectively forgone his right to exist without the proposition of injury or death. This is why it would be O.K. for someone to shoot a knife wielding attacker who has intended to cause serious harm, for example, as that knife attacker has chosen to forgo his right to safety at the moment he chose to endanger another in a lethal manner.

To recap: the boundaries of "self-defense" lies within' using a reasonable and equalizing force.

3. Where do "gun rights" come in?

For as many disagreements there are about the boundaries of self-defense, the gun right portion is actually quite simple in comparison. This is because the opinions on the boundaries of self-defense will (or at least should) dictate the feelings on where gun rights come to play.

Going with my above supposition on the boundaries of self-defense, my position is quite simple here. 

First, it is fair to say that one needs to be allowed the ability to exercise their inalienable rights. So, going back to free speech as an example, it would not be reasonable to say, " You can say what you want, but only in the privacy of your own home where no one can hear you." Or, "You can say what you want, so I won't infringe on your freedom of speech. But if you call the president or a congressperson a jerk, then you will be put in prison for 10 years." Obviously by suppressing the ability to exercise an inalienable right, or by penalizing someone for exercising a right is not respecting that right at all. So, you have to be freely enabled to exercise a right, otherwise it is an infringement and oppression.

That point made, you have to be freely able to use a reasonable equalizing force for your self-defense right to be un-infringed.

If you are attacked by multiple attackers, or attacked with a gun or a knife, or attacked in a lethal manner where you are not as physically capable as your attacker, then how can you use a reasonable equalizing force?

The only answer is a firearm. 

That does not mean that all of self-defense boils down to using a gun. Obviously, things like situational awareness and avoidance would come first, and would dissuade most threats. But, you need to allow people to carry a weapon that could deliver a reasonable equalizing force. Otherwise, you are not respecting their inalienable right to self-defense.

So where the UN points out that because people have a right to "life," that self-defense then becomes a necessary extension of that right, I would argue that because self-defense is inalienable, being able to carry a firearm would be a necessary extension of that right.

As everyone can see, this belief regarding gun rights and self-defense rights is not that hard to understand, as it all follows a vary logical sequence. We run into problems when people disagree with the suppositions (usually regarding the boundaries of self-defense) or when people simply don't follow a logical sequence at all.

C.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 8, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> First, not to split hairs here, but an "inalienable" right is given by no one (overlooking any metaphysical arguments here); it is simply a right that all human beings have. The UN or the US or any government for that matter does not grant us these rights; we have these already. They either choose to recognize them or not, protect them or not, or trounce on them or not. I know this may seem like splitting hairs, but I feel that it is important to be on the same page with this for the discussion.
> .


 

Wow ... who has used the word "inalienable" to describe anything in this thread? Which "right" are you claiming to be "inalienable"? 

And, you posit only two states for this mythical thing ... "Recognized" or "Trounced". 

When those are the only choices presented, it appears to me an incomplete listing.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 8, 2007)

dart68 said:


> The right to self defense only extends to stopping the attacker by whatever reasonable means is necessary. Should the attacker die as a result of this is ancillary but you don't have the right to kill him.


 
dart68 ... this is the language, as I understand it, that was presented in the quoted United Nations article. 




dart68 said:


> A firearm is qualified under the right of self defense because for some it *may be* the only way to reasonably effect self defense. It is simply a tool but possibly the only one that may equalize a self defense situation.


 
One key phrase in the presentation of this idea is ... "may be". I do not understand how one gets from "may be" to "inalienable".


----------



## dart68 (Nov 8, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> dart68 ... this is the language, as I understand it, that was presented in the quoted United Nations article.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I recently got my CCW here in Colorado.  A part of the manditory gun safety class was self defense law.  

Example:  If an attacker comes at me with a baseball bat and when I shoot him he drops the bat and runs away and later dies, then I was defending myself.  But if as he is running away I shoot and kill him, then I've just crossed the line from self defense to murder.  Maybe this guy deserved to die, but who other than a jury has the right to say so.  If this is the essence of the language in the UN article, then I agree.

I believe it is the right of self defense that is inalienable, not the tool used.  However, if you restrict or outright ban a necessary tool (a firearm for this discussion) that allows you to exercise your right to self defense then you infringe on that inalienable right.  That's the connection.  In my opinion it make no difference if the tool is a knife, sword, or a gun.  But as I stated before, a gun may be the *only* tool that a person can effectively use in some situations.  In those situations if you take that tool away then you might as well write the epitaph for the victim.


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Nov 8, 2007)

There are many gun owners that are very one dimensional. It seems to me, that people who have less to focus on tend to be the loudest.

I am what some would call a "gun nut". I am an NRA Endowment Member, and Firearms Instructor, and I own enough firearms to start my own store. 

Most people would have to know me for years to find this out, because I am involved in so many things, I will not be focusing on this one piece of Bill of Rights. They are just as important as the next, and when one is tarnished, it effects the whole.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 8, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Wow ... who has used the word "inalienable" to describe anything in this thread? Which "right" are you claiming to be "inalienable"?
> 
> And, you posit only two states for this mythical thing ... "Recognized" or "Trounced".
> 
> When those are the only choices presented, it appears to me an incomplete listing.



If your talking about anything in the bill of rights, you are talking about what the founding fathers considered to be inalienable rights:

_"the Framers believed there were antecedent principles, fundamental rights that did not depend on the will of the people or the will of the king."

"The premise that there are antecedent rights is also shown by the language of the Declaration of Independence. It uses the phrase "inalienable rights" for the antecedent rights. Inalienable rights do not depend on the will of the people or the will of the king."

_http://webster.utahbar.org/barjourn...irginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0100.htm

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0100.htm

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0950.htm

Yes, inalienable rights. Rights that we have simply because we exist as human beings. Remember from high school American History class? The whole Debate between the founding fathers (Jefferson, Madison, etc.) about even making a "Bill of Rights" because exponents believed that this was only stating the obvious, that these rights are assumed because they are inalienable, and it isn't to be construed as the government "granting" us these rights because they do not belong to the government to "grant?" Remember that whole thing?

Yea. When we talk about the 2nd amendment we are talking about what the framers considered an inalienable right. And I am glad that the Jeffersonian side won and that we have our bill of rights; just because they are inalienable, that doesn't stop people from trying to trounce them, even when they are written down...


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 8, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> And, you posit only two states for this mythical thing ... "Recognized" or "Trounced".
> 
> When those are the only choices presented, it appears to me an incomplete listing.



Right... I said:



> They either choose to  recognize them or not, protect them or not, or trounce on them or not.



What other choices do governments have in regards to our inalienable rights (you know, those things you think are mythical)?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 9, 2007)

MichaelEdwards, I see that you haven't addressed the points in my last post, but let us move on anyway.

Here is another logic bridge for you, based on suppositions that were posited here:

1.  If the ability to exist is a right, and,

2.  If the ability to take away someone's *right* to exist can be *justified* in self-defense,

3.  Then it follows that there can be justification to remove any right from a person with a justification.

I would say that based upon this logical sequence, there is no such thing as a right, because it could always be trumped by a justification, which in my opinion, is less than a right. 

How about this as a better idea:

Everyone has the right to life, *as long the right to life of others is not violated*.  If one person attempts to take away the right to life of another, the *right of self-defense* pre-empts the attacker's right to life.

Then for legallistic reasons, the defender must show how his right to self-defense pre-empted, or justifies, the attacker's right to life.  But the basic competition is between *rights*, not just the justification of taking away a right.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 9, 2007)

dart68 said:


> I recently got my CCW here in Colorado. A part of the manditory gun safety class was self defense law.
> 
> Example: If an attacker comes at me with a baseball bat and when I shoot him he drops the bat and runs away and later dies, then I was defending myself. But if as he is running away I shoot and kill him, then I've just crossed the line from self defense to murder. Maybe this guy deserved to die, but who other than a jury has the right to say so. If this is the essence of the language in the UN article, then I agree.
> 
> I believe it is the *right* of self defense that is inalienable, not the tool used. However, if you restrict or outright ban a necessary tool (a firearm for this discussion) that allows you to exercise your right to self defense then you infringe on that inalienable right. That's the connection. In my opinion it make no difference if the tool is a knife, sword, or a gun. But as I stated before, a gun may be the *only* tool that a person can effectively use in some situations. In those situations if you take that tool away then you might as well write the epitaph for the victim.


 
What you describe in the third paragaraph as a 'right' (self-defense), is not recognized by the laws of the countries around the world as a 'right'; inalienable or otherwise. 

That you choose to believe it is, really, irrelevant. The laws do not support your belief. 

The language of 'inalienable right' shows up ...

How is an 'inalienable right' different from any other type of right?  
Or are all rights inalienable? 
Are there different degrees of rights?
If there are degrees of rights, are there greater rights and lesser rights? 
If there are greater rights and lesser rights, what defines the line between them? 
If there things that are not rights, but instead, let us say privleges, what defines the line between a right and a privlege? 

It seems to me, that these questions hint at a continuum of rights, privleges and protection.

The laws of the nations around the world, place "self-defense" on that continuum in a place other than a 'right'. 

It seems that may people seem to be yelling at me ~ that I don't understand ~ and it seems they keep hoping if they yell louder, they will break through my thick head. But, it is not my head that is needed to get through to ... alter the laws of the nations around the world.


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 9, 2007)

Why are you talking about "other" countries? I'm not exactly an isolationist, but, who cares what other countries think of the right to self defense?


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 9, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> How about this as a better idea:
> 
> Everyone has the right to life, *as long the right to life of others is not violated*.  If one person attempts to take away the right to life of another, the *right of self-defense* pre-empts the attacker's right to life.



Well, here is another way of looking at it:

We have inalienable rights, but by our actions we can forgo those rights.

For example, although I have the right to live safely, if I choose to jump off a building, I have for that moment forgone that right. I should have no reasonable expectation that I am not going to at least get injured from that action.

Further, if someone decides to rob a store at gunpoint, they have at that moment forgone their rights to exist and live safely because they have purposefully and threateningly endangered the lives of others. There should be no reasonable expectation that the robber won't get injured or killed if someone decides to defend himself.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> How is an 'inalienable right' different from any other type of right?
> Or are all rights inalienable?



An inalienable right is different then other rights as explained in the links I provided in my previous post.



> The very foundation of government, therefore, rests on the inalienable rights of the people and of each individual composing their mass. The Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, is the fundamental statement of what government is and from what source it derives its powers. It begins with a summary of those inalienable rights that are the self-evident basis for a free society and for all the powers to protect those rights that a just government exercises.



Inalienable rights are self-evident. Our right to exist, our right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness are all self-evident; these are rights that we have regardless of whether a government system chooses to recognize it or not. Other rights that enable us to exist and pursue life, liberty and happiness (like freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and the right to defend ourselves) are also self-evident. These are detailed in our Bill of rights, BUT NOT GRANTED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THis is an important distinction.

It is important to note that even if a government system did not detail a right in their constitution, or even if we had decided to not detail a bill of rights, we would still have these rights because they are SELF-EVIDENT. This is vitally important to understand.

However, when another country decides to not recognize an inalienable right, like self-defense for example, it makes most of us a bit skeptical that the country in question could actually be a free society. Most of us like living in a free society, and want to try to keep it that way.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 9, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> Why are you talking about "other" countries? I'm not exactly an isolationist, but, who cares what other countries think of the right to self defense?


 
Michael, this thread was started with Andy Moynihan's "The UN doesn't believe in the right to self-defense" thread. It was split from that thread. 

The posts that make up the first two pages or so of this thread were culled from that thread by a moderator. The moderator chose to title this spin-off thread "Constitutional Rights". Although it appears that I started this thread ... I did not. I did not name this thread. 

I am still having that conversation ... maybe not everyone else is. 

But, I suppose your comment begs the question ... How does the United States view the "right" of self-defense? Where in US law is self-defense defined, and how is it defined?


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Michael, this thread was started with Andy Moynihan's "The UN doesn't believe in the right to self-defense" thread. It was split from that thread.
> 
> The posts that make up the first two pages or so of this thread were culled from that thread by a moderator. The moderator chose to title this spin-off thread "Constitutional Rights". Although it appears that I started this thread ... I did not. I did not name this thread.
> 
> ...


 
OK - gotcha.

Well, as far as the US, I know at most state levels, there are laws that restrict what level of force you can respond with. Generally, you shouldn't exceed that which was used against you. If you do, you have to show that you thought your life was in danger, or something to that effect.

But I also think that it extends to protecting your property as well. That mileage may vary. Some places will say you have to let them leave with your stuff, others may be more on your side.

At the Federal level, or in US law, I'm even less sure. But I know there is some quote somewhere about the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. To me, right to life would mean that I can defend it by any means available. :shrug:


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 9, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> An inalienable right is different then other rights as explained in the links I provided in my previous post.
> Inalienable rights are self-evident. Our right to exist, our right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness are all self-evident; these are rights that we have regardless of whether a government system chooses to recognize it or not. Other rights that enable us to exist and pursue life, liberty and happiness (like freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and the right to defend ourselves) are also self-evident. These are detailed in our Bill of rights, BUT NOT GRANTED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THis is an important distinction.
> It is important to note that even if a government system did not detail a right in their constitution, or even if we had decided to not detail a bill of rights, we would still have these rights because they are SELF-EVIDENT. This is vitally important to understand.
> However, when another country decides to not recognize an inalienable right, like self-defense for example, it makes most of us a bit skeptical that the country in question could actually be a free society. Most of us like living in a free society, and want to try to keep it that way.


I think you are incorrect in your ascertion that the rights in the Bill of Rights are not 'Granted' by the Bill of Rights, but that they are 'inalienable'. 
These two ideas are not interchangable. The Bill of Rights does define rights to people living in America. Those rights are granted by the State.

For instance, there is not an inalienable, self-evident right against being accused for the same crime twice. There is not an inalienable, self-evindent right to operate a free press. There is not an inalienable, self-evident right against quartering an army without compensation. 

These rights are granted to the residents of a state, by the good will of the state, or in our case, by the consent of the governed.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 9, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> But I know there is some quote somewhere about the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. To me, right to life would mean that I can defend it by any means available.


 
I'm sure you know that is from the Declaration of Independence. An interesting question would be, does the Delcaration provide any basis for law in the United States. 

And, in the second sentence I have included in the quote, you use a very important prepositional phrase: "To me,"

I understand that your attitude is shared by many posting here. 

Legally, however, according to a survey by the United Nations, your *right* to life, does not extend to a *right* to take anothers' life in self-defense. The Country's surveyed did indicate that one would be exonerated from punishment; or justified in their actions which deprived another person to his right to life. 

But ~ legally ~ the States have not granted a right to self-defense.

I get that people don't like this. But, it is what the law in the various States pronounce. 


As you indicate, there are some laws in this country that do move toward a more firm legal standing in the event of self-defense (Castle Doctrine) .... but I'm not certain that is settled law in our own nation, either.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I think you are incorrect in your ascertion that the rights in the Bill of Rights are not 'Granted' by the Bill of Rights, but that they are 'inalienable'.
> These two ideas are not interchangable. The Bill of Rights does define rights to people living in America. Those rights are granted by the State.



No; I am correct on this:
*"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers 12:440*

*"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134*

It was understood that all people have natural rights that exist whether governments grant these or not; the bill of rights was just detailing these.

The idea that the bill of rights is what grants us our freedoms is a misconception; the bill of rights is simply a written recognition of rights that we already have based on natural law or "the laws of nature." You can read John Locke and letters from the old arguments behind the bill of rights if you want; I won't do your homework for you.

The 2nd amendment was considered an inalienable right, among the rest:
* "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45*

You might not like this, and you might want to argue that people don't have inalienable rights, or that the right to self-defense or to bear arms is not inalienable, but these are not the principles of which the United States was founded on.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 9, 2007)

I notice that you are not quoting any actual LAWS in the United States.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 10, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> For example, although I have the right to live safely, if I choose to jump off a building, I have for that moment forgone that right. I should have no reasonable expectation that I am not going to at least get injured from that action.



I would question in what way you believe that we have the right to live safely?  I dont think that is the case at all.  No one has the right to live free from floods, earthquakes, building collapses, even simple animal attacks.  All of life is associated with risks, even to a persons life, therefore no right to live safely exists.

What you are speaking of sounds more akin to a right of sovereignty over ourselves.  We can control what actions we take, and place ourselves in more of less risk of death/injury, but there is never a possibility of living absolutely safely even if one so chooses, therefore no such right exists.



			
				Cruentus said:
			
		

> Inalienable rights are self-evident. Our right to exist, our right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness are all self-evident; these are rights that we have regardless of whether a government system chooses to recognize it or not. Other rights that enable us to exist and pursue life, liberty and happiness (like freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and the right to defend ourselves) are also self-evident. These are detailed in our Bill of rights, BUT NOT GRANTED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THis is an important distinction.



I have to disagree.  Even if you do side with the Founders, the only inalienable rights that they explicitly spoke about were the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Although they believed that the things enumerated in the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, were what allowed the rights to exist within a governmental system, they were not toe inalienable rights that they speak about.  

One can infer that such claims are made, but that is not the same.



			
				MichaelEdwards said:
			
		

> I'm sure you know that is from the Declaration of Independence. An interesting question would be, does the Declaration provide any basis for law in the United States.



Law is not based on the Declaration of Independence.  However, depending on the judge, it can be used as the basis for interpreting the law, which would lead to it de facto being law.  Also, legislators us the philosophical framework, or should use, it to determine new laws.



			
				MichaelEdwards said:
			
		

> I notice that you are not quoting any actual LAWS in the United States.



How about this:

*Alabama:   That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.*   Art. I, § 26

*Arkansas:   The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense.*   Art. II, § 5

*Colorado:  The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.*   Art. II, § 13

*Connecticut:   Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.*   Art. I, § 15

*Delaware:  A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.*   Art. I, § 20

*Florida:  (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

**Georgia:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.*   Art. I, § 1

In the immortal words of the propaganda machine of the movie "Starship Troopers,"     

"Would you like to know more?"


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 10, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I notice that you are not quoting any actual LAWS in the United States.


 
Ya know whats funny about that Mike?  We had a debate on here a while back about "Seperation of church and state" where I indicated that the letter of the law as it was written did not provide for it, and the argument was thrown back at me that regardless of theletter of the law, the founders intended it to be so as evidenced in their other writings.

Now here the issues are reversed, and the other writings are no good, you want to only aknowlage the letter of the law.

Interesting.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 10, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Ya know whats funny about that Mike? We had a debate on here a while back about "Seperation of church and state" where I indicated that the letter of the law as it was written did not provide for it, and the argument was thrown back at me that regardless of theletter of the law, the founders intended it to be so as evidenced in their other writings.
> 
> Now here the issues are reversed, and the other writings are no good, you want to only aknowlage the letter of the law.
> 
> Interesting.


 
Its human nature (and internet debating nature) to use whatever you can to support your particular point of view. I know I do it. Nobody is going to have an instant change of opinion here. gradually..over time people may change, but they sure as shootin are not going to admit it.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 10, 2007)

Here is Illinois by the way... not that they deem to follow it:



> RIGHT TO ARMS
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the
> individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed.
> (Source: Illinois Constitution.)


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 10, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I would question in what way you believe that we have the right to live safely?
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Well, we are splitting hairs on definitions with the word "safe." The right to be relatively safe is inalienable. When I say this, I mean the right to be safe based on factors you can control, not uncontrollable factors such as natural disasters. But even so, a key role of government is to safeguard the people, implying that in as much as we can control it, "safety" is inalienable. Perhaps, if I said "the pursuit of safety," then that might sound better?

And as to the Bill of Rights; you can disagree all you want, but that doesn't change the historicity and the philosophy. The Declaration of Independence was a key document in outlining the philosophy of which all of our laws are based off of; that philosophy being that the right of man to pursue life, liberty, and happiness is inalienable, as is rights assumed by the "laws of nature" to ensure that man can pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The Bill of rights is a detail of these assumed rights given by the "laws of nature." This all goes back to Lockean philosophy, and the arguments of between Madison and Jefferson about even needing to detail a Bill of Rights at all, with the other side of the argument being that these rights are assumed not "granted" (as no government can grant natural rights) and therefore do not need to be detailed. You can disagree, but the history behind this is all there, and I provided some links that apparently no one wants to read to point people in the right direction.



> I notice that you are not quoting any actual LAWS in the United States.



There are plenty of laws related to self-defense and the right to bear arms, and you know it. Kenpo 5-0 listed some. Your trolling now, it seems.

But you know what is cool about inalienable rights? The "laws" are incidental to the fact that you have these rights anyway because of the simple fact that you are a human being.



> Nobody is going to have an instant change of opinion here. gradually..over time people may change, but they sure as shootin are not going to admit it.



You are probably correct. That is frustrating to me because I would be perfectly willing to change my views on something and admit it if I thought I was wrong based on the arguments and evidence. I have in fact done so with this very issue in the past. So usually the playing field is not even when I have these discussions, because I am not willing to stick to my opinion at all costs and no matter how silly like my opposition.

Speaking of which, I am seriously thinking of aborting this thread, as it seems to have gotten a bit silly. I feel like opposing arguers have basically resorted to trolling and splitting hairs, and have not really provided a sound opposing argument in return. But, we'll see...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 10, 2007)

If delf-defense isnt part of the right to LIFE. I dont know what is.


----------



## dart68 (Nov 10, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Well, we are splitting hairs on definitions with the word "safe." The right to be relatively safe is inalienable. When I say this, I mean the right to be safe based on factors you can control, not uncontrollable factors such as natural disasters. But even so, a key role of government is to safeguard the people, implying that in as much as we can control it, "safety" is inalienable. Perhaps, if I said "the pursuit of safety," then that might sound better?
> 
> And as to the Bill of Rights; you can disagree all you want, but that doesn't change the historicity and the philosophy. The Declaration of Independence was a key document in outlining the philosophy of which all of our laws are based off of; that philosophy being that the right of man to pursue life, liberty, and happiness is inalienable, as is rights assumed by the "laws of nature" to ensure that man can pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The Bill of rights is a detail of these assumed rights given by the "laws of nature." This all goes back to Lockean philosophy, and the arguments of between Madison and Jefferson about even needing to detail a Bill of Rights at all, with the other side of the argument being that these rights are assumed not "granted" (as no government can grant natural rights) and therefore do not need to be detailed. You can disagree, but the history behind this is all there, and I provided some links that apparently no one wants to read to point people in the right direction.
> 
> ...


 
I don't believe anyone has the right to feel safe.  I do think that you have the right to feel reasonably safe in your own home.  That right does not extend to being in public.  The reason is that what makes one person feel safe may not be enough for another.  You do have the right to protect yourself in the event someone tries to make life unsafe for you.

I think trolling is the correct term.  Splitting hairs and arguing for the sake of arguing.  In that light, that's not even playing the part of the devil's advocate.

I  picture someone at their keyboard acting like a child with their fingers in their ears saying, "Na na na I can't hear you na na na!  I want names and addresses of people and written scripture on the laws that don't exist even when someone shows them to me." 

Or perhaps that it's the Amity Island mayor syndrome.  He's not going to believe there's a shark until it swims up and bites him on the ***!


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 10, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Law is not based on the Declaration of Independence. However, depending on the judge, it can be used as the basis for interpreting the law, which would lead to it de facto being law. Also, legislators us the philosophical framework, or should use, it to determine new laws.


 
This is interesting ... I suppose that is what the Conservatives would call 'activist judges'. We hear outrage from Conservatives when judges reference material other than U.S. Law in their opinions, don't we? 




5-0 Kenpo said:


> How about this:
> 
> *Alabama: ....* Art. I, § 26
> *Arkansas: ....* Art. II, § 5
> ...


 
Thank you. Those are excellent references. I suppose it is unfortunate that the United Nations survey did not include polling these several states.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 10, 2007)

re: trolling.

The discussion began with a report from the UN that there are no laws in the member nations that describe a right to self-defense. No one has refuted or disproved that ascertion. 

Everybody has an opinion ... but those opinions are not backed up with international legal framework. 

5-0 Kenpo showed State laws about three posts above. Which I think I have acknowleged. 

I suppose if you ignore the subject, anything can be trolling. 

So, who is doing the name calling?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 10, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> re: trolling.
> 
> The discussion began with a report from the UN that there are no laws in the member nations that describe a right to self-defense. No one has refuted or disproved that ascertion.
> 
> ...



Um, I think I did refute that ascertion.  Unless the United States (and its political subdivisions) are no longer a member nation of the U.N.



			
				Cruentus said:
			
		

> Well, we are splitting hairs on definitions with the word "safe." The right to be relatively safe is inalienable. When I say this, I mean the right to be safe based on factors you can control, not uncontrollable factors such as natural disasters. But even so, a key role of government is to safeguard the people, implying that in as much as we can control it, "safety" is inalienable. Perhaps, if I said "the pursuit of safety," then that might sound better?



With this statement, you are showing me that you are not going to be willing to concede a point no matter what.  Even to someone who agrees with your point on the overall thread.  

And even Jefferson, I believe, would agree with me:

* "Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376*



Personal soveriegnty.  But no where does he say that people have a right to live safely.  It comes close when Jefferson states:

* "The Constitutions of our several States vary more or less in some particulars. But there are certain principles in which all agree, and which all cherish as vitally essential to the protection of the life, liberty, property, and safety of the citizen....*


But again, although he specifies that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as rights elsewhere, nowhere does he call the "safety of the citizen" a right.  You may call it splitting hairs, but I am not so arrogant as to attribute a statement to a man who has more than made his thoughts to us known.



			
				Cruentus said:
			
		

> And as to the Bill of Rights; you can disagree all you want, but that doesn't change the historicity and the philosophy. The Declaration of Independence was a key document in outlining the philosophy of which all of our laws are based off of; that philosophy being that the right of man to pursue life, liberty, and happiness is inalienable, as is rights assumed by the "laws of nature" to ensure that man can pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The Bill of rights is a detail of these assumed rights given by the "laws of nature." This all goes back to Lockean philosophy, and the arguments of between Madison and Jefferson about even needing to detail a Bill of Rights at all, with the other side of the argument being that these rights are assumed not "granted" (as no government can grant natural rights) and therefore do not need to be detailed. You can disagree, but the history behind this is all there, and I provided some links that apparently no one wants to read to point people in the right direction.



What I think you are referring to is this statement by Jefferson:

* "It is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end." --Thomas Jefferson: --Thomas Jefferson: Report on Navigation of the Mississippi, 1792. ME 3:180 

"The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1790. ME 8:72 
*


So, in other words, if one has the right to life, one must have the right to the means to protect that life.  Hence, by extension, the right to self-defense.  But I still don't see how that gives one the right to live safely.  Then we would just have a bunch of redundant rights, to the point where one could begin to argue that everything is a right.

And although you may feel that splitting hairs is tiresome, when waging battles of philosophy, especially in trying to figure out the "natural" rights of man, holding someone to exacting standards does not seem out of place.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 10, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Um, I think I did refute that ascertion. Unless the United States (and its political subdivisions) are no longer a member nation of the U.N.


 
The States you listed are not members of the United Nations.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 10, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> But again, although he specifies that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as rights elsewhere, nowhere does he call the "safety of the citizen" a right.  You may call it splitting hairs, but I am not so arrogant as to attribute a statement to a man who has more than made his thoughts to us known.



* "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315*

And your quote:

* "The Constitutions of our several States vary more or less in some particulars. But there are certain principles in which all agree, and which all cherish as vitally essential to the protection of the life, liberty, property, and safety of the citizen....

*Again, I have to disagree with you. This has nothing to do with an unwillingness to concede a point (I could say that you are the one who is unwilling at this stage), or me being "arrogent" as you propose. Nor does a right to live safely mean that all of a sudden anyone can call anything an inalienable right. Your all over the place with this one and not making any sense.

The word _safety_ is used in quotes that lumps it in with other inalienable rights, and is even stated in the declaration.  This has also been stated in many State constitutions. 

Some Examples: 

N. Dakota: "All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain  inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and  liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing  and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of  their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting,  recreational and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

Ohio: All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable    rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty,    acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining    happiness and safety.

California: All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.    Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring,    possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety,    happiness, and privacy.

The list goes on:

http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=rkba_protections

The point is, "safety" has been considered an inalienable right by many since the inception of our constitution and before. You may not agree with the idea of 'safety' being inalienable, but the fact is that the idea has been around for quite sometime. Now, we can discuss what this idea of "safety" means, but I don't think that we can deny that this has always been somewhere in the picture of our inalienable rights.

And I happen to agree with the right to safety being an inalienable one in the same sense that the right to freely assemble (for example) is an inalienable one, in that you have the right so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. 

But you can believe what you want, I guess. :idunno:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 10, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The States you listed are not members of the United Nations.



The States are members of the U.N. by virtue of being a part of the United States.  In any event, based on your wording, I am still correct.



			
				MichaelEdwards said:
			
		

> The discussion began with a report from the UN that there are *no laws in the member* nations that describe a right to self-defense. No one has refuted or disproved that ascertion.



The various states are inside of the member nation, therefore there are laws *in *the member nations that describe such a right.  Or are you simply saying that the federal government has no such laws?  In that, I will agree with you.



			
				Cruentus said:
			
		

> * "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315*


Ok, I see a statement about how the government should be formed, but no right stated.



			
				Cruentus said:
			
		

> * "The Constitutions of our several States vary more or less in some particulars. But there are certain principles in which all agree, and which all cherish as vitally essential to the protection of the life, liberty, property, and safety of the citizen....*



Again, principle, but no right to safety, as I stated before.



			
				Cruentus said:
			
		

> N. Dakota: "All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.
> 
> Ohio: All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.
> 
> California: All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety,    happiness, and privacy.



In all of your examples, notice the specific wording: *obtaining safety*.  I can agree with them that the right to obtain safety exists in the law of nature.  But, unless you believe that the writers of these various text don't believe that the specificity of words is important, they never said that safety itself is a right.

As an example, the sixth amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an *impartial* jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have *compulsory* process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Now let's take out the words in bold, which are merely adjectives.  But doesn't this put a whole new spin on the amendment.

So, in closing, the things that you have put up for support for your position in no way say that there is a right to safety.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 10, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> In all of your examples, notice the specific wording: *obtaining safety*.  I can agree with them that the right to obtain safety exists in the law of nature.  But, unless you believe that the writers of these various text don't believe that the specificity of words is important, they never said that safety itself is a right.
> 
> As an example, the sixth amendment:
> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an *impartial* jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have *compulsory* process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
> ...



Well, we can say a right to "obtain" safety if that makes you feel better. It makes me feel better. That is a better way of explaining it, just as the right to "pursue" happiness is better then saying the right to happiness for various different reasons. I agree with you that language can be important.
However, a better way of explaining something doesn't change the INALIENABLE RIGHT THAT I HAVE BEEN ESPOUSING ALL ALONG.

I find it funny that you yourself never offered the words "obtain" safety until I quoted them. So, basically you were simply looking to argue with someone and make yourself feel better rather then offer a valid alternative or any content to a discussion. Congratulations. That is only about the nerdiest thing one could do on an internet forum, so you should be proud.

In closing, I am willing to use the words "obtain safety" from now on simply because it is a better explanation; glad I found it in those quotes. However, a better way of saying something doesn't invalidate the essence of the inalienable right that I have been talking about. The right for human beings to obtain safety is inalienable. Big difference? Anything changed as far as the topic goes? Not really...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 10, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Well, we can say a right to "obtain" safety if that makes you feel better. It makes me feel better. That is a better way of explaining it, just as the right to "pursue" happiness is better then saying the right to happiness for various different reasons. I agree with you that language can be important.
> However, a better way of explaining something doesn't change the INALIENABLE RIGHT THAT I HAVE BEEN ESPOUSING ALL ALONG.
> 
> I find it funny that you yourself never offered the words "obtain" safety until I quoted them. So, basically you were simply looking to argue with someone and make yourself feel better rather then offer a valid alternative or any content to a discussion. Congratulations. That is only about the nerdiest thing one could do on an internet forum, so you should be proud.
> ...



If you must know, I didn't think of the right to "obtain" safety, because I think that, for the purposes of this discussion, the right to self-defense says it all.  But it would be disingenuous, when the very issue we are debating here is legal semantics, to allow you to get away with something that is just not there, just as I have tried to do with MichaelEdwards.

And to be frank, as you have, I find it interesting that though I prove my point to even your satisfaction, you feel the need to attack me personally.  That is nothing more than showing the fact that your ego is more important than honest intellectual debate.  It's the debate version of, "So, you're still a poopy-head."

Besides, I offered more substantial showing of the right to self-defense as a legal right, much more than you did.  Therefore, I would say that I added more substantial content to this discussuion then you did.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 10, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> And to be frank, as you have, I find it interesting that though I prove my point to even your satisfaction, you feel the need to attack me personally.  That is nothing more than showing the fact that your ego is more important than honest intellectual debate.  It's the debate version of, "So, you're still a poopy-head."



You didn't prove your point. I proved your point with my links and quotes.

As to attacking you personally? Just calling it like it is. Your sole purpose since you attacked my SEMANTICS has been to try to "prove" that you are somehow "better" then me on an internet forum discussion. I can't think of anything much more nerdy then that.



> Besides, I offered more substantial showing of the right to self-defense as a legal right, much more than you did.  Therefore, I would say that I added more substantial content to this discussuion then you did.



Yup. Thank you for supporting my above point, and also proving that your ego is also bigger then mine.


----------



## Ray (Nov 10, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The discussion began with a report from the UN that there are no laws in the member nations that describe a right to self-defense. No one has refuted or disproved that ascertion.
> 
> Everybody has an opinion ... but those opinions are not backed up with international legal framework.
> 
> ...


You say you have no legal right to defend yourself, so why do you keep trying? You should just give up, no?


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 10, 2007)

I think that these last few exchanges is my cue to abort this thread. It was a good discussion for awhile, but it would seem that fragile ego's and nerdy, whiny, "I'm better then you" behavior, and a need to try to 'prove' others wrong rather then have an objective discussion has fully taken over.

Nice job  those of you who decided to take it there. And "5-0 kenpo;" the last thing you have the justification to do is question my integrity. I have been able to admit fault and when I am wrong many times on this forum and elsewhere. My self-esteem isn't so fragile that I cannot do that. But, I happen to prefer objective discussions where people mutually respect each others viewpoint; not idiot forum flamewars where nerds attack my semantics and my integrity. Why don't you correct my spelling while you are at it.

So, I'm out. Hopefully the next discussion can be a bit more objective, honest, and less nerdy...

C.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 11, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I think that these last few exchanges is my cue to abort this thread. It was a good discussion for awhile, but it would seem that fragile ego's and nerdy, whiny, "I'm better then you" behavior, and a need to try to 'prove' others wrong rather then have an objective discussion has fully taken over.
> 
> Nice job  those of you who decided to take it there. And "5-0 kenpo;" the last thing you have the justification to do is question my integrity. I have been able to admit fault and when I am wrong many times on this forum and elsewhere. My self-esteem isn't so fragile that I cannot do that. But, I happen to prefer objective discussions where people mutually respect each others viewpoint; not idiot forum flamewars where nerds attack my semantics and my integrity. Why don't you correct my spelling while you are at it.
> 
> ...



I have to say, I'm confused.

1.  I prove my point, even to the person who I proved incorrect.

2.  I'm attacked personally for proving my point.

3.  I defend my honor from said attack.

4.  Am further attacked for defending myself.

Sincerely, MichaelEdwards, thank you for an honest debate.  Though we have disagreed, at least you were a worthy opponent.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 11, 2007)

Ray said:


> You say you have no legal right to defend yourself, so why do you keep trying? You should just give up, no?


 
Ray ... this is not about what *I* say. This is what is called an 'ad hominem' attack. 

The thread was started by a article at the United Nations.

The United Nations surveyed their members ~ and the member nations do not have laws spelling out and declaring a "right" to self-defense. The member nations will acknowlege that self-defense is a justification to avoid prosecution or sentencing if one person eliminates another persons right to life in self-defense.




5-0 Kenpo .. I would ask you to review the United Nations member list, here. http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml ... the States you referenced are not on that list.


----------



## terryl965 (Nov 11, 2007)

[playnice]TerryStoker[/playnice]


----------



## elder999 (Nov 11, 2007)

I&#8217;ve let this go on for seven pages without saying anything, and, with all due respect to you as a person, Michael-and one I often agree with, you&#8217;re completely out to lunch on this one. Your arguments are specious, fallacious, disingenuous and sometimes seem to be downright dishonest. I&#8217;ll cover them backwards, and point out that  this post,  split off from another thread, is what started this thread and not, as you&#8217;ve (dishonestly?) misstated, the U.N.&#8217;s declaration on self-defense.

As for the U.N.-I&#8217;ll just say that

*Self defense is a primary civil-right**.*

Our Founding Fathers did not create our civil liberties-the very heart and soul of our personal and national lives. They secured those liberties. They safeguarded them. The Bill of Rights is our guarantee of freedom-it doesn&#8217;t enumerate our rights-it points out those rights that the government can&#8217;t mess with-if you look at the language, that&#8217;s the format it follows-&#8220;Congress shall make no law&#8230;..&#8221;

Humankind had freedom of expression as a natural right. Europeans had freedom of religion expression before reaching the shores of this country, as did the Native Americans. Even though the right to religious expression has been continually and systematically denied the human race for centuries, it has been ours to assert; it has been our right to secure.

All these great rights are ours. All these rights are the machinery that propels this Republic. Take away one right, weaken one civil liberty, and the machine starts sputtering-as it is now, tearing itself apart like an engine that&#8217;s thrown a rod-as it is now, grinding to a halt and leaving us stranded on the side of the road, a road patrolled only by a mob.

Then there&#8217;s that Second Amendment. Could it be that the Founding Fathers, after protecting religious freedom, freedom of speech, and a free press, then set about to protect hunting? Could it be that the Founding Fathers, after safeguarding our right to assembly, then hastened to safeguard target shooting?

Perhaps they had states&#8217; rights in mind. They wanted to protect the rights of states to form the militias. A collective right. If the freedom to bear arms is a right of states, where are the cases filed by states? Although they are very few, Second Amendment claims are brought by individuals, not states. The courts have never struck down a single case brought by an individual citizen, because his name was not Alaska or Alabama.

And if the Founding Fathers wanted to guarantee a state right, no one uttered a word about it. If the Second Amendment safeguarded a collective right, it was the best kept secret of the 18th century. No known writing of the period between 17817 and 1791 even suggests that one single American entertained such a notion. 

With its tap root in the British common law of self *defense* (which is now relegated to history, and to what sad effect) the Second Amendment is a right that prevails when, heaven forbid, all else fails. The Second Amendment more than affirms your right to protect yourself and your family; it marks the property line between individual liberty and state sovereignty. The state can do all it can to assure our corporate safety-our &#8220;National Security,&#8221; but it cannot infringe upon our right to personal safety. If it does, it is not heeding the property line; it is trespassing. 

Second Amendment advocates are fond of pointing to Nazi Germany, Stalin&#8217;s Russia, Mao&#8217;s China or Pol Pot&#8217;s Cambodia as distant lessons of tyranny that could have been resisted by an armed citizenry. The last century was filled with holocausts, from the Warsaw Ghetto to the killing field of Rwanda. 

* &#8220;Of course, that sort of thing could never happen here.&#8221;* It&#8217;s not as though the government hasn&#8217;t already abrogated some of our Constitutional Rights with the USA PATRIOT Act&#8230;.but, I digress&#8230;..

How is it that conservative Republicans can claim the Second Amendment as their own? There&#8217;s always been a teeter-totter relationship between an individual&#8217;s delicate rights and the state&#8217;s overwhelming power. Historically, hasn&#8217;t it been liberal Democrats who have always wanted to place the fulcrum in the position that favors the individual? 
In the words of a great American:

* &#8220;Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used, and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced, but the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proven to always be possible.&#8221;*

This quote isn&#8217;t form Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh-not that I&#8217;d call _them_ &#8220;Great Americans. It&#8217;s from the exemplar of postwar American liberalism, former Vice-President Hubert Humphrey. He knew then-and we know today- that we do not have tyranny in this country. I mean, the courts are open, right? The voting booths are open and elections are fair, right?Our rights to unreasonable search and seizure, due process, and freedom of assembly are all protected, so our right to bear arms and defend ourselves must also be- is this not so? And if it isn't, well, what America is it that we're living in? I'd venture it's one where the next step *will* be to take our guns.....

You&#8217;e called the Second Amendment a &#8220;minority right,&#8221; though it&#8217;s a right for all to exercise-it&#8217;s true, a small portion of our nation&#8217;s population do exercise that right to bear arms. A small portion ever have the reason to exercise their 5th Amendment right not to incriminate themselves, or to a speedy trial-perhaps, by your argument, we should do away with those rights as well?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 11, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Ray ... this is not about what *I* say. This is what is called an 'ad hominem' attack.
> 
> The thread was started by a article at the United Nations.
> 
> ...


 
Again, I understand that you are saying that as a separate governmental agency that the State governments are not "members".  But what I am saying is that by virtue of being in a member nation, the states are a part of the U.N.  Admittedly, if we are just going to concern ourselves with Federal Law, then you may be correct.  But the U.S. is in a unique position in the world in that State law is on parity with Federal law. 

Now having said that, my point still remains.  There are laws *within* the United States which say that a person has a right to self-defense.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 12, 2007)

elder999 said:


> Ive let this go on for seven pages without saying anything, and, with all due respect to you as a person, Michael-and one I often agree with, youre completely out to lunch on this one. Your arguments are specious, fallacious, disingenuous and sometimes seem to be downright dishonest. Ill cover them backwards, and point out that this post, split off from another thread, is what started this thread and not, as youve (dishonestly?) misstated, the U.N.s declaration on self-defense.


 
Oh, come on now. ... Don't hold back, tell me how you really feel. 

Oh, there were two threads in which I was invovled. One of which got split ... But, my position was being attack (or is that my person was being attacked) in both of the other two prior to the split. If I confused as to which thread was split, and which conversation was which ... well, just hold that against me, too.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Oh, come on now. ... Don't hold back, tell me how you really feel.
> 
> Oh, there were two threads in which I was invovled. One of which got split ... But, my position was being attack (or is that my person was being attacked) in both of the other two prior to the split. If I confused as to which thread was split, and which conversation was which ... well, just hold that against me, too.


 

Well, I didn't hold back-I told you how I really feel. And, I used a question mark after "dishonestly?" for just the reason you've pointed out....of course, the other thread didn't get started with the U.N. declaration on self-defense, either..it was the one that asked which candidate would be best for gun owners....really no different than asking which would be best fo pro-lifers, or those in favor of gay marriage, or against it, or any other issue, but somehow you took offense-or, at the very least, your curiosity was aroused by the mere asking of the question...

...still not clear at all on what your position is-the one that was being attacked, that is...


----------



## Ray (Nov 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Ray ... this is not about what *I* say. This is what is called an 'ad hominem' attack.
> 
> The thread was started by a article at the United Nations.


 I didn't attack you.

I must have misunderstood your position, I thought you felt compelled to follow the lead of the UN, or that you actually believed you had no right of self defense.  Hence the legitimate question. 

This would be an attack:  Oh, there you go and pull a Hillary and say I'm attacking you.

But that is not what I said.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 2, 2007)

Looking through the U.N. Charter, I found this interesting tidbit in Article 51:

*Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. *

This does actually seem to say that the individual has a *right* to self-defense, even if only in a limited capacity.


----------

