• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

Who's talking about laws?

I am talking about RIGHTS which predate the Constitution,.... not laws.

And the Constitution did not, can not, was not intended to invalidate the rights of the people which predated the Constitution.

In fact, (sans the Bill of Rights) is specifically established and put in place a system to defend those rights which predate the constitution itself.

Whatever rights pre-date the Constitution are irrelevant to what happens IN the Constitution. You are arguing from a natural rights position. Natural rights do not exist. We are not "born" with any rights. We are born with desires and instincts. The Constitution identifies rights. Anything prior to it's writing, does not apply to it until it is in it.
 
The right to keep and bear arms is not a tradition.

It's a right that (according to the Constitution which you are trying to revere) "shall not be infringed".

And I have no problem with that right.
 
It is not ambiguous at best, only so if you're trying to construct a silly reach around argument.

Wrong. It IS ambiguous at best and research of the usage of the time indicated that. I'll post the information and my link, tonight, when I get home.

The fact of the matter is that the purpose to keep and bear arms is to fight, there's little purpose in making it legal to "hold" a gun if the necessity is to fight foreign or domestic threats to our liberty.

Irrevant to what is written. Unless you want to use interpretation.

To continually say "well I looked into it, but it doesn't say you can use the gun" is abject stupidity and nothing more. Sorry, but that's the reality of the situation.

No, the reality is that you are pissed because your position doesn't hold water, unless you use interpretation... which then be hypocritical for you, considering your politics. If you want to be an originalist, then my position stands as accurate. If you want to interpret, than it doesn't. But that would mean you would have to admit, Ikari, that you are not the staunch originalist that you present yourself to be. And I know you don't like that.

We had not long ago (in terms of the construction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) beaten the English and tried a form of government which had failed, so the founders needed a government with a slightly stronger central government, but that was also a danger. The 2nd is there to ensure the People have the proper tools to defend themselves should their lives and liberty be threatened by another source. They're not going to sit there and say "Oh...well you can hold a gun, but not fire it".

Again, irrelevant to what is written and the common meaning of the phrase.

No, as the purpose was duty to the militia, the People had need to operate their guns as well. As such, the definition of "to bear" includes the functional use of the tool in question. As the dictionary meaning of the word includes.

Oxford English Dictionary Sign In
4. In many phrases. a. to arms! (formerly [OFr.] as armes! at arms!): take to your arms, be ready for fight! b. in arms: armed, furnished with weapons, sword in hand, prepared to fight; as to rise in arms (of a number); up in arms, in active readiness to fight, actively engaged in struggle or rebellion; also fig. c. to take up arms: to arm oneself, rise in hostility defensive or offensive, to draw the sword; also fig. to bear arms: to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight. to turn one's arms against: to make war upon, attack. to lay down arms: to surrender, cease hostilities, give up the struggle.
a. 1330 R. BRUNNE Chron. 162 Richard, ‘has armes!’ did crie. c1380 Sir Ferumb. 2933 ‘Asarmes!’ {th}anne cride Rolond, ‘asarmes, euerechon!’ c1450 Merlin xxii. 406 And ronne to armes moo than xxvii squyers. c1450 LONELICH Grail xiii. 231 Anon, ‘As Armez,’ they gonnen to crie. 1470-85 MALORY Arthur I. xi. (1634) 22 ‘Lords, at arms! for here be your enemies at your hand.’ 1711 POPE Rape Lock v. 37 To arms! to arms! the fierce Virago cries. 1842 MACAULAY Horatius xx, To arms! To arms! Sir Consul.
b. 1503 HAWES Examp. Virtue vii. 97 Whan in armes..He all his ennemyes dyd abiecte. 1588 SHAKES. L.L.L. V. ii. 636 Heere comes Hector in Armes. 1593 {emem} 2 Hen. VI, IV. i. 93 Hating thee, and rising vp in armes. 1611 BIBLE 1 Macc. xii. 27 Ionathan commaunded his men..to be in armes. 1704 SWIFT T. Tub Apol., All the men of wit..were immediately up in Arms. 1810 SCOTT Lady of L. III. xiv, In arms the huts and hamlets rise. 1868 Digby's Voy. Medit. Pref. 32 As soon as the facts came to the knowledge of the Admiralty..Buckingham's Secretary was up in arms.
c. 1297 R. GLOUC. 63 Alle {th}at armes bere A{ygh}en {th}e king. c1590 MARLOWE Massac. Paris III. i, The Guise hath taken arms against the King. 1602 SHAKES. Ham. III. i. 59 To take Armes against a Sea of troubles. 1769 ROBERTSON Charles V, V. III. 329 Obliged to take arms in self-defence. Ibid. V. IV. 410 He turned his arms against Naples. 1795 SEWELL Hist. Quakers I. Pref. 7 For bearing arms and resisting the wicked by fighting. 1831 BREWSTER Newton (1855) II. xiv. 2 Newton took up arms in his own cause. 1848 ST. JOHN Fr. Rev. 245 Lay down your arms. 1872 YEATS Growth Comm. 180


This is consistent with every use of the word "arms", be it to lay down arms, take up arms, etc. that was used at the time. So you can stop with the little side show because it's so nonsensical it causes brain cells to commit suicide. Leave the little buggers alone, they're just trying to think.

And nothing above proves me wrong... in fact, as one can see, there is a tremendous amount of ambiguity in the meaning. No, Ikari, from what is written, possessing and carrying would be how it is defined in a common way. Now, again, if you want to extrapolate further, fine. I would agree with that. But remember, you are then using interpretation, not being a staunch originalist.
 
I'm going according to the definitions of the time and the intent of the 2nd amendment. The purpose to keep and bear arms, the necessity of the militia was to fight. And thus fighting was part of "to bear arms" as supported by the actual definition of "to bear arms".

BTW, I have personally laid claim only to minarchism and the maximization of our rights and liberties. If you want to interpret that as "originalist" or "interpretist" (I may have just made those words up) that's up to you. I think there is a lot to learn from the founding fathers, particularly in the political philosophy and belief of natural rights which many of them upheld. But would an originalist support slavery?
 
I'm going according to the definitions of the time and the intent of the 2nd amendment. The purpose to keep and bear arms, the necessity of the militia was to fight. And thus fighting was part of "to bear arms" as supported by the actual definition of "to bear arms".

And according to the information I have read, it is ambiguous. The common usage was "to carry and possess"... yes, from the 18th Century. I'll post the link to my information, later... I don't have the link at work, and I don't have a whole lot of time to look for it.

BTW, I have personally laid claim only to minarchism and the maximization of our rights and liberties. If you want to interpret that as "originalist" or "interpretist" (I may have just made those words up) that's up to you. I think there is a lot to learn from the founding fathers, particularly in the political philosophy and belief of natural rights which many of them upheld. But would an originalist support slavery?

I would interpret that as being an originalist. And I agree that we can learn a lot about philosophy from the founders; I enjoy reading the Federaist Papers (I know... weird) and some of their discussions, but, so you know, I completely reject the concept of natural rights, so, I would imagine that you and I are going to have an impossible time agreeing on certain aspects of the Constitution.
 
Yet the wording is "to keep and bear arms", not "to carry and possess"; the focus is less on just having guns, as covered by "keep", but the necessity to use arms in defense of a free State. Hence "to bear". Additionally, to bear itself has within its definition the functional use of the object. Thus to bear arms carries with in it the functional use of arms, or to fight. Thomas Jefferson envisioned revolution as a proper tool of the People to keep the government in check. Or do away with it completely should it grow too offensive to the natural rights and liberties of the People. Everything about the 2nd amendment is in defense of a free State, which means that one must be allowed to use their guns, not just keep them. It's because of this necessity of defense that the right of the People to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon.

As for natural rights, I have a hard time understanding how people can completely reject them. But because of that difference, we will indeed have fundamental differences which are irreconcilable in regards to the Constitution and the few example rights it had listed.

And it's fine if you want to label what I said as "originalist", but I personally make no claims to originalist. Much of what I call for may line up best with that line of thought, but the goal is expanding the freedoms and liberties of the People which may not line up with strict "originalist" arguments. I lay claim to minarchism as there is a necessity for government and some things it can do well to benefit the People; however, it is very easy to get too much government and too much government is contrary to the purpose thereof. Thus you either control it or destroy it. Though to clarify, the destroying isn't an endorsement of anarchy as anarchy doesn't work. But rather it is the right of the People to construct for themselves a government which best meets their needs and upholds their rights and liberties.
 
Last edited:
And according to the information I have read, it is ambiguous. The common usage was "to carry and possess"... yes, from the 18th Century. I'll post the link to my information, later... I don't have the link at work, and I don't have a whole lot of time to look for it.

?



I would interpret that as being an originalist. And I agree that we can learn a lot about philosophy from the founders; I enjoy reading the Federaist Papers (I know... weird) and some of their discussions, but, so you know, I completely reject the concept of natural rights, so, I would imagine that you and I are going to have an impossible time agreeing on certain aspects of the Constitution.

How about inalienable rights Cap? Do you believe in them? Or, are they the same as natural rights? :devil: advocate
 
How about inalienable rights Cap? Do you believe in them? Or, are they the same as natural rights? :devil: advocate

an interesting question but it really doesn't matter since it is undeniable those who wrote the constitution and founded this nation believed in them and that is the grand assumption upon which our system of laws is based
 
How about inalienable rights Cap? Do you believe in them? Or, are they the same as natural rights? :devil: advocate

Inalienable rights and natural rights are synonymous. There is no evidence that we are born with any rights. We are born with instincts, and grow to have desires. Unless someone can point out the gene that indicates that we have a "right" to free speech or a "right" to bear arms, ain't no way anyone is going to convince me otherwise. This is the one thing the founders completely missed the boat on. Or, what I actually believe is that they used this very strong terminology/philosophy both to indicate to England the seriousness of what they were doing, and to prevent tyranny from once again corrupting this nation.
 
Why would Gore not concede? Why should he concede. Do you know the definition of "concede"? That should answer your question.


You pick one word and focus on that to render an out of context interpretation of what I was saying. In Fl, it was proposed that the entire state be recounted, and the Gore campaign not only said no to this but fought against it. Why?


j-mac
 
Inalienable rights and natural rights are synonymous. There is no evidence that we are born with any rights. We are born with instincts, and grow to have desires. Unless someone can point out the gene that indicates that we have a "right" to free speech or a "right" to bear arms, ain't no way anyone is going to convince me otherwise. This is the one thing the founders completely missed the boat on. Or, what I actually believe is that they used this very strong terminology/philosophy both to indicate to England the seriousness of what they were doing, and to prevent tyranny from once again corrupting this nation.


So you think it was bluster, and language to prevent tyranny here, right? Well, if you are on the side that believes that rights are only that which is extended by government, like Obama does, then how is that not tyranny?


j-mac
 
So you think it was bluster, and language to prevent tyranny here, right? Well, if you are on the side that believes that rights are only that which is extended by government, like Obama does, then how is that not tyranny? j-mac

You have to love the gall some people have.

To suggest the government grants us or gives us the right to keep and bear arms,....

A right that we have in the event that we (the people) may have to use them (arms) AGAINST that very government should it ever become tyrannical,....

BUT! (sic) they actually believe that same government has the right to regulate the USE of the weapons it allows for "the people" to have and to protect themselves with,..... against THAT same government that (in their opinion) gave them the right.

OH my gawd.

How do we reason with someone that far gone?
 
Last edited:
You have to love the gall some people have.

To suggest the government grants us or gives us the right to keep and bear arms,.... in the event that we (the people) may have to use them AGAINST that government,.... but (sic) that same government has the right to regulate the USE of the weapons it allows for people to protect themselves against THAT same government,.....

OH my gawd.

How do we reason with someone that far gone?


It's fast approaching the point where you don't.


j-mac
 
It's fast approaching the point where you don't.

j-mac

I've never seen anything like it.

I can't even imagine a fitting analogy to explain the holes in their logic.

What good does it do,... to have the right to keep and bear arms against a government that has the right to regulate your use of those arms?

It's like saying you have the right to defend yourself against me,.... but I have the final say in how you do it.

It's insane.
 
You pick one word and focus on that to render an out of context interpretation of what I was saying. In Fl, it was proposed that the entire state be recounted, and the Gore campaign not only said no to this but fought against it. Why?


j-mac

Why? Why not?
 
Inalienable rights and natural rights are synonymous. There is no evidence that we are born with any rights. We are born with instincts, and grow to have desires. Unless someone can point out the gene that indicates that we have a "right" to free speech or a "right" to bear arms, ain't no way anyone is going to convince me otherwise. This is the one thing the founders completely missed the boat on. Or, what I actually believe is that they used this very strong terminology/philosophy both to indicate to England the seriousness of what they were doing, and to prevent tyranny from once again corrupting this nation.


:facepalm:

Are our rights more secure if a majority believe them to be inherent and immutable, or an arbitrary and artificial construct?

Might want to think on that a bit.
 
Well there's a bit more to it though. There's a fundamental difference between those who ultimately support natural rights and those who deny natural rights. In the end it is an understanding built on observation and philosophy which drives us to choose one camp or the other. Fundamentally it comes down to this realization. Do you think all humans are created equally, that fundamentally we are all the same? If yes, you're in the natural rights side. If no, you're in the no natural rights side.
 
Do you think all humans are created equally, that fundamentally we are all the same? If yes, you're in the natural rights side. If no, you're in the no natural rights side.

I disagree, and I feel like this is a misrepresentation. I think you can have a purely positivist conception of rights and still believe that "all humans are created equally, that fundamentally we are all the same." Natural rights theory hasn't got a monopoly on equality.

The real fundamental difference as I see it is whether you think that rights are ultimately human artifice or are derived from some divine or supernatural source.
 
If we were all created equal and we were all truly the same, we wouldn't have any need for laws-- including laws that grant rights.
 
If we were all created equal and we were all truly the same, we wouldn't have any need for laws-- including laws that grant rights.

Is it that we are all created differently, or that we are all created under different circumstance??

The constitution doesn't 'create' rights, it enumerates them.

I don't get this idea that people can believe that people are born with different rights or something?? Don't you get that if you find an excuse to strip one person of their rights it's only a matter of time before someone decides to strip you of YOUR rights. Can someone explain to me how people don't believe that as a human that you should be treated with a level of human dignity no matter if you are super-rich or barely able to survive poor??
 
So you think it was bluster, and language to prevent tyranny here, right? Well, if you are on the side that believes that rights are only that which is extended by government, like Obama does, then how is that not tyranny?


j-mac

It's not tyranny. It's how society works to form governments. I've explained this to you before. You didn't get it then, so I'm not sure why I would bother trying again.
 
You have to love the gall some people have.

To suggest the government grants us or gives us the right to keep and bear arms,....

A right that we have in the event that we (the people) may have to use them (arms) AGAINST that very government should it ever become tyrannical,....

BUT! (sic) they actually believe that same government has the right to regulate the USE of the weapons it allows for "the people" to have and to protect themselves with,..... against THAT same government that (in their opinion) gave them the right.

OH my gawd.

How do we reason with someone that far gone?

Not gall. You seem to believe that there is some sort of bizarre gene that instills in us the right to "bear arms" from birth. When you can identify that gene, I'll agree with you. Until then, natural rights are nothing more than some fantasy.

Beyond that, you make the ridiculous argument that everything that the government does is for itself... which omits the fact that the government is created by the people and run by the people. It is not some odd entity unto itself. So, since the people create the government, of course they are going to create laws that prevent those in power, current and future, from being tyrannical.

These are real simple concepts to understand... yet they seem to elude you.
 
It's fast approaching the point where you don't.


j-mac

Like I said. j-mac. You didn't grasp what I said the last time I explained this to you, even though you had nothing to counter it. I find no reason to explain it to you again.
 
:facepalm:

Are our rights more secure if a majority believe them to be inherent and immutable, or an arbitrary and artificial construct?

Might want to think on that a bit.

That's not as easy as you make it out to be.

IMO, a belief that such rights are inherent causes people to be less vigilant about guarding them. The idea that some magical being has infused you with some right that cannot be taken away gives a false sense of that right. Tell me, what right to life does a man have drowning in the ocean? Or two people starving on an island? Who's right to life supersedes the other? In such context, the notion of natural rights completely falls apart. No organism in the world other then us practices the notion of natural rights. In nature, there are no such rights. Everything is either given or taken by force.

Where as artificial constructs, you fully understand that it is force that gives and force that takes away and it is our job to ensure that force remains under our control.
 
So you think it was bluster, and language to prevent tyranny here, right? Well, if you are on the side that believes that rights are only that which is extended by government, like Obama does, then how is that not tyranny?

j-mac

Because, unlike previous historical governments, we can actually write our own laws to dictate rights. Yes, you are correct, in previous eras where men had no political say over their laws, it was effectively tyranny. But that does not make the notion of natural rights are more correct.

You may wish to brush up on the literature of Locke and Hobbes.
 
Back
Top Bottom