Discussion on the BBC Regarding Gun Legislation

[Bill Mattocks]

Either way, we have the Constitution, which gives Americans the right to keep and bear arms. The only problem is that our Supreme Court has utilized its position, not to determine legallity, but to put forth its own political agenda, thus subverting the Constitution in the first place.

Minor quibble: the Constitution does not give anyone anything. It forbids the US federal government from infringing upon specified (enumerated) rights such as those contained in the Bill of Rights. By extension, the States are likewise forbidden from infringing on some of them (via the 14th Amendment).

That which is given can be taken away. The Constitution specifically says that we have our rights from our Creator, and no one may take them away for any reason whatsoever. There are governments which 'give' rights to their citizens; I feel our way is superior to theirs for that reason.

 

[Deaf Smith]

The Constitution specifically says that we have our rights from our Creator, and no one may take them away for any reason whatsoever. There are governments which 'give' rights to their citizens; I feel our way is superior to theirs for that reason.

Totally 100 percent agree. Our 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting.

I am a free man. You cannot be free if you cannot defend yourself. And you cannot defend yourself if you don't have the means to defend yourself.

Nor can citizens be free if they cannot unite and take their government back by force if need be. But to do that also requires arms. So they must 'keep and bear arms', for the other Amendments of the Constitution are meaningless if they cannot be enforced BY THE PEOPLE.

And guns, just like rocks, knives, hammers, baseball bats, cars, and yes fist and feet, don't kill people. It's people who have it in their hearts they want to kill. Like they say, the mind is the weapon, all else is supplemental.

Deaf

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Minor quibble: the Constitution does not give anyone anything. It forbids the US federal government from infringing upon specified (enumerated) rights such as those contained in the Bill of Rights. By extension, the States are likewise forbidden from infringing on some of them (via the 14th Amendment).

That which is given can be taken away. The Constitution specifically says that we have our rights from our Creator, and no one may take them away for any reason whatsoever. There are governments which 'give' rights to their citizens; I feel our way is superior to theirs for that reason.

With all due respect Bill, you're wrong.

First, the word "Creator" (or God, or Lord (except in the date) appears no where in the U.S. Constitution. Even more so, it does not say from where we receive our rights.

What you are probably refering to is the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which has no legal binding whatsoever. It is a philosophical presentation. A position paper, if you will.

Even still, it say nothing about the ownership or bearing of arms. What it does say is this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

It says nothing about arms. Now, I do believe that the Founders thought that the keeping and bearing of arms was the best way to secure those inalienable rights. But, that is a far cry from saying that the keeping of an AK-47 or M-16 was authorized by a "Creator".

What the U.S. Constitution does is prevent the government from intruding on your right to keep and bear arms. In essence, if not in writing, it is giving you that right.

As a simpler example, did the "Creator" thusly spake: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Where did the "Creator" give us this right? In what religious text or philosophy can this be found?

Even when speaking of the Founders, the reason for the Bill of Rights was because anti-federalists would not sign onto the Constitution without it. The Federalist Papers actually argue against a Bill of Rights. For reasons other then denying the people the right to bear arms, I'll grant you. But none the less, this was not an original product of the Constitution, and was adopted four years after it was ratified.

As a further point, the 14th Amendment doesn't even apply to the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court Justices refused to incorporate it. (Is it any wonder why I see a "conspiracy" to deny us this Constitutional right.) And this is why we have had many years of debate of whether the 2nd Amendment applys to individuals or States, or yada yada. This is why we had State religions until the 14th Amendment.

So yes, Bill, the Constitution does give us our right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Archangel M]

I'd disagree. The Constitution tells the gvt. what it can or can't do..not "US". It may be splitting hairs in the long run, but in spirit our country was founded on the idea that we already have ALL rights except for those we allow the gvt to limit. So in effect they don't "grant" us anything..we give them the authority to limit our freedoms via legislation.

 

[elder999]

What the U.S. Constitution does is prevent the government from intruding on your right to keep and bear arms.

So yes, Bill, the Constitution does give us our right to keep and bear arms.

That other thing you said-that's what it does. It preserves that right, and all the others enumerated therein. It says what the government can't do-it does not confer, or give, anything. This principle can be seen to be upheld in later amendments, for instance:

Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Fifteenth amendment
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

Aren't you a lawyer? That explains it! :lfao:

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I'd disagree. The Constitution tells the gvt. what it can or can't do..not "US". It may be splitting hairs in the long run, but in spirit our country was founded on the idea that we already have ALL rights except for those we allow the gvt to limit. So in effect they don't "grant" us anything..we give them the authority to limit our freedoms via legislation.

Is that so?

Do you have a right to get married, or do you need a marriage license?

Do you have a right to drive a motor vehicle, or do you need a driver's license?

Do you have a right to carry a concealed firearm, or do you need a permit? What is really telling is that they have actually denied this right in certain places, namely Washington D.C.

Did slaves, who were considered human by the Federalist Papers, have the same right to have firearms as others? Did they not forbid Blacks, even free ones, from having firearms? And it wasn't it all perfectly legal.

And another question: What are "all rights"? Where would you find these so-called "rights"? Where did our creator "endow us" with these rights?

I get what you are saying, truly I do. As a philosophical belief, I agree with you. But the fact of the matter is that Bill's agrument is just plain wrong, legally and historically speaking. One could argue that what he, and you, are saying was the intent, but in their philosphical paper, the Declaration of Independence, it doesn't even argue it.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

That other thing you said-that's what it does. It preserves that right, and all the others enumerated therein. It says what the government can't do-it does not confer, or give, anything. This principle can be seen to be upheld in later amendments, for instance:

That's why the "gives" was in quotations. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't in the original Constitution, and therefore, legally, the people were not entitled to it. And, in fact, it was only grudgingly added.

Not only that, but Bill stated that the Creator endowed us with the right to bear weapons. Nowhere in any documentation does it say this.

What is again interesting is why there would be a need for these Amendments if they were already in fact rights. Even still, Bill's argument is that they are the rights given by the Creator. Tell me, in whatever religious philosophy, that the Creator talked about voting.

Aren't you a lawyer? That explains it! :lfao:

Uh, no, I'm not.

I am a police officer who has studied, and continues to study, the readings and intent of the Founders of the Constitution, as well as subsequent case law and it's historical context.

Geez, Elder, since you went on hiatus from here, your ability of argumentation has sorely declined. I am actually beginning to believe that someone took over your screen name. An ad hominem attack??? Really.

 

[elder999]

That's why the "gives" was in quotations. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't in the original Constitution, and therefore, legally, the people were not entitled to it. And, in fact, it was only grudgingly added.

Added it was, though-and it doesn't "give" or give anything- it restricts the government.

Not only that, but Bill stated that the Creator endowed us with the right to bear weapons. Nowhere in any documentation does it say this.

And it surely doesn't say that anywhere in the Constitution-I didn't argue for a moment that it did.

What is again interesting is why there would be a need for these Amendments if they were already in fact rights.

And surely someone who has:

studied, and continues to study, the readings and intent of the Founders of the Constitution, as well as subsequent case law and it's historical context.

would understand from the arguments at the time-from reading the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, precisely why it was agreed to make those very Amendments that we call the Bill of Rights, when, in fact, to a man the founders believed that they were already rights.

They didn't want them to be infringed upon by the government. Ever

"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
Samuel Adams

Even still, Bill's argument is that they are the rights given by the Creator. Tell me, in whatever religious philosophy, that the Creator talked about voting.

Where, exactly, is "voting" mentioned in the Bill of Rights? (No where, though you might construe it to be protected by the ninth Amendment)Voting is a privilege. More to the point, the founders believed those rights were natural, or "God-given" rights-again, something someone who had read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers would know:

You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe."
John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President

Geez, Elder, since you went on hiatus from here, your ability of argumentation has sorely declined. I am actually beginning to believe that someone took over your screen name. An ad hominem attack??? Really.

Not really. Only a police officer would consider being called a lawyer in reference to an argument about the Constitution an "ad hominem attack." :lol:
(I honestly thought you were a law-school graduate...)

 

[elder999]

Is that so?

Do you have a right to get married, or do you need a marriage license?

IS marriage mentioned in the Bill of Rights? More to the point, in many places, (like New Mexico) there is common law marriage, and no license is needed. Even more to the point, the state doesn't marry you, a preacher doesn't marry you: two people marry each other/

Do you have a right to drive a motor vehicle, or do you need a driver's license?

Where is driving mentioned in the Constitution, save Congress's right to regulate commerce? Pretty sure it's a privilege, anyway.

Do you have a right to carry a concealed firearm, or do you need a permit? What is really telling is that they have actually denied this right in certain places, namely Washington D.C.

And, sadly, this is in keeping with the Constitution's mention of regulatory powers for the states-as long as a permitting process for the "right to keep and bear arms" is provided (where in the Constitution does it say "concealed?"Nowhere-CCW is a privilege) then such measures are Constitutional-until such time as courts rule otherwise, anyway....

Did slaves, who were considered human by the Federalist Papers, have the same right to have firearms as others? Did they not forbid Blacks, even free ones, from having firearms? And it wasn't it all perfectly legal.

In the early days states also forbade Catholics and Jews from voting-New York, for example. And, actually, free blacks could own firearms in New York.....again, all perfectly legal, and perfectly Constitutional....nor did they negate the notion that such rights are conferred by God.

And another question: What are "all rights"? Where would you find these so-called "rights"? Where did our creator "endow us" with these rights?

Ooh, I know-just before you're born an angel touches you on your lips and says, Shhh! Forget what you know! That's when your rights are endowed, and that's why you have that dimple on your upper lip: it's where the angel touched you!

Honestly.

But the fact of the matter is that Bill's agrument is just plain wrong, legally and historically speaking. .

Actually, it's not wrong. It's just what the founders said, and what subsequent cases law and commentary have said.

Just what books have you been "studying and continuing to study?" :lfao:

Oh, yeah, and the Declaration of Independence (our "philosophical document? I like that! :asian: ) says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" kind of clearly says that "rights" come from "God." and "among these are" implies that there are others besides "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

 

[Tez3]

Edited.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Added it was, though-and it doesn't "give" or give anything- it restricts the government.

By restricting the government it establishes the right.

And surely someone who has:

would understand from the arguments at the time-from reading the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, precisely why it was agreed to make those very Amendments that we call the Bill of Rights, when, in fact, to a man the founders believed that they were already rights.

They didn't want them to be infringed upon by the government. Ever

Where, exactly, is "voting" mentioned in the Bill of Rights? (No where, though you might construe it to be protected by the ninth Amendment)Voting is a privilege. More to the point, the founders believed those rights were natural, or "God-given" rights-again, something someone who had read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers would know:

This is not merely about the Bill of Rights. It is about anywhere in the U.S. Constitution where it states that the people have the right to a thing, which would include those Amendments after the Bill of Rights. Are the rights enumerated in other subsequent Amendments less of a right due to their numerical order on a piece of paper? Rights to vote, such as described in the 15th and 19th Amendments:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

So voting, according to the U.S. Constitution, is a right, not a privilege. You are wrong in that aspect.

So was this a right instituted by man through the Constitution, or the Creator?

I will submit to you that the inalienable right was to liberty, to wit, the best way to ensure it was to allow people to vote for the people they would choose to represent them, and not be forced to be represented by people whom they had no say in electing or denying their election.

Just as in the same way that the Founders believed that the best way to secure life was for the people to keep and bear arms.

I propose this to you: Is there anywhere in the Constitution that says that the 2nd Amendment can't be repealed?

No, there is not. It can be repealed by a subsequent Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment.

As far as the quotes you cited:

"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
Samuel Adams

These quotes are vague. What does it mean "the right to defend them in the best manner they can? Defend in what way? Which is the best manner? Defend from whom, the government or other individuals? In terms of keeping and bearing arms, how do we know that this is the best way of accomplishing these goals?

Once again, I will submit to you that they believed, as do I, that the personal ownership of arms is the best, and truly only way, to reliably do so. But this is a far cry from saying that the Creator gave us such a right.

What if I developed a better way to secure life, liberty, and puruit of happiness other then the keeping and bearing of arms. Would I then be able to Constitutionally strip away people's right to do so?

Not really. Only a police officer would consider being called a lawyer in reference to an argument about the Constitution an "ad hominem attack." :lol:
(I honestly thought you were a law-school graduate...)

No problem.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

IS marriage mentioned in the Bill of Rights? More to the point, in many places, (like New Mexico) there is common law marriage, and no license is needed. Even more to the point, the state doesn't marry you, a preacher doesn't marry you: two people marry each other/

Where is driving mentioned in the Constitution, save Congress's right to regulate commerce? Pretty sure it's a privilege, anyway.



And, sadly, this is in keeping with the Constitution's mention of regulatory powers for the states-as long as a permitting process for the "right to keep and bear arms" is provided (where in the Constitution does it say "concealed?"Nowhere-CCW is a privilege) then such measures are Constitutional-until such time as courts rule otherwise, anyway....

This was a reply to Arch's comment that we have all rights until we allow the government to restrict them.

But then again, how can you restrict something that is a right? Especially one granted by a Creator.

As to your last comment, how is carrying a concealed firearm a privilege when the Constitution says that I have a right to bear arms. In any event, you cannot carry a firearm in California if it is loaded. Now, how is that allowing you to bear arms. And since a certain group is carrying unloaded, non-concealed firearms, there is legislation being pushed through that will prevent even that. In essence, they will prevent you from bearing arms altogether, much less the fact that they already prevent you from carrying one that can do you any good.

In the early days states also forbade Catholics and Jews from voting-New York, for example. And, actually, free blacks could own firearms in New York.....again, all perfectly legal, and perfectly Constitutional....nor did they negate the notion that such rights are conferred by God.

You're right. And that was because there was no law in the Constitution which allowed, ie. gave the right to by preventing the government from infringing upon (see where this is going), such people to vote. But, subsequent legislation did.

Now, was this a right conferred by God, or by man. And that is the main gist of the whole argument. This is not merely a legal debate, but also a philosophical one. It is about where our rights come from, and what are the nature of those rights.

And because free Blacks in one State out of thirteen were allowed to own firearms, that fulfills the idea that the government shall not infringe upon the right anywhere???

Besides which, until the 14th Amendment, states had every right to restrict, or even prevent firearm ownership. That they didn't do so did not mean that somehow it was a right which they couldn't prevent.

Actually, it's not wrong. It's just what the founders said, and what subsequent cases law and commentary have said.

Case law since when? That is an important point. If the Founders believed that only certain classes and types of people should be able to own arms, and those rights were conferred by God, then my right as a Black man is contingent upon the government's approval, not God's.

In terms of legallity, it is a somewhat of a moot point. It is my right, whether the government says it is or not, correct. That is the point, right. That my rights were given to me by God, not the government.

Just what books have you been "studying and continuing to study?" :lfao:

Just the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers (which I am currently reading), the Anti-Federalist Papers, The Rights of Man, Common Sense, etc. Those things.

Oh, yeah, and the Declaration of Independence (our "philosophical document? I like that! :asian: ) says:

"Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" kind of clearly says that "rights" come from "God." and "among these are" implies that there are others besides "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Fair enough Elder, but it begs the question: What are those other rights?

Is it the right to a house? A right to a steady income of a million dollars? A right to health care? A right to drive a car? How far does one take this?

The only thing that we can say for sure that the Founders agreed upon were inalieanable rights given to us by our Creator are those which they enumerated, and the subsequent laws passed were enacted to secure those specific rights.

Otherwise, if I enacted a right to a house, wouldn't that then have been proscribed by God?

 

[chaos1551]

I think you guys should add into the discussion whether or not there is a creator.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I think you guys should add into the discussion whether or not there is a creator.

Why? It's not relevant to what we're discussing.

We're talking about what the Founding Fathers believed is the basis of our rights, and what those rights entailed. It doesn't matter whether there is an actual Creator or not.

 

[chaos1551]

Tension breaker. My apologies. Carry on.

 

[Tez3]

Why? It's not relevant to what we're discussing.

We're talking about what the Founding Fathers believed is the basis of our rights, and what those rights entailed. It doesn't matter whether there is an actual Creator or not.

Actually it is relevant because in a previous post Bill Mattocks said

"That which is given can be taken away. The Constitution specifically says that we have our rights from our Creator, and no one may take them away for any reason whatsoever. There are governments which 'give' rights to their citizens; I feel our way is superior to theirs for that reason. "

Therefore bringing up the subject of a Creator and making it a legitimate subject for discussion here. If there is no Creator how were these rights conferred, if there is a Creator, do those rights only pertain to those who believe in said Creator, etc etc, you get the gist.

 

[Grenadier]

Let's keep the convo back on topic, shall we?

The presence, or the lack of a presence, of lawfully owned firearms has no bearing on the crime rates of a particular society.

People who lawfully own firearms in the US, have no felonies on their records, are not users of illegal substances, are not members of subversive organizations, are not habitual drunkards, etc. If they fail to mention any of these on ATF4473, then the purchase is illegal.

If you pass laws that attack the right of the law-abiding people to keep and bear arms, you're missing the big picture, since criminals tend to thumb their collective noses at the laws. We can always look at the "gun-free paradise" of Jamaica, where the drug lords have absolutely no problem arming their gangs with high quality firearms, despite guns being illegal for lawful civilian ownership.

Even if you strip away the right of the people to lawfully keep and bear arms, criminals will still find ways of committing mass-murder. The Bath School Massacre easily shows what a dedicated murderer can do with commonly available materials.

Or, in the case of Timothy McVeigh, you can see what someone can do with an old vehicle, motorcycle racing fuel, and fertilizer.

It's not a lawful firearms ownership issue; it's a cultural issue, plain and simple. The UK has had a much less violent culture than the US, throughout the years. Banning firearms has had no effect in reducing crime rates there, since the same people who are part of a less violent society continue to be less violent, whereas if firearms were banned in a more violent society, such as Jamaica, the same violent society will continue to be violent.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Actually it is relevant because in a previous post Bill Mattocks said

"That which is given can be taken away. The Constitution specifically says that we have our rights from our Creator, and no one may take them away for any reason whatsoever. There are governments which 'give' rights to their citizens; I feel our way is superior to theirs for that reason. "

Therefore bringing up the subject of a Creator and making it a legitimate subject for discussion here. If there is no Creator how were these rights conferred, if there is a Creator, do those rights only pertain to those who believe in said Creator, etc etc, you get the gist.

We're not discussing whether those rights came from an actual Creator. What we are discussing is where the Founding Fathers believed those rights came from.

It's really a matter of their intent, and the foundation, whether right or wrong, of the philosophy underlying the rights inherent in the poeple of the U.S.