• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Pre-convention discussion: bill of rights, right to keep and bear arms

This is likely to be a major sticking point, and where I will depart from other liberal minded individuals.

Anyway this is my proposed text for a right to bear arms provision

Article 2
1)the right of the individual to bear arms in defense of himself and of the state and for hunting and lawful recreation shall not be abridged
A) "Abridged " is defined as any law, regulation or scheme of laws and regulations likely to discourage an individual from choosing to exercise the rights of this article
B) "Arms " means any device intended for use as a weapon that is capable of being employed by a single person
2) nothing in this article shall be construed as prohibiting regulations on the commercial sale or criminal use, or possession by individuals adjudicated as a danger to others either by criminal conviction or mental defect, provided said regulations do not violate section 1 of this article.

No federal law or regulation shall prevent any person being at least 21 years of age to possess and bear nonautomatic weapons on their property. This shall not be construed to prohibit laws restricting the ability of criminally convicted of mentally defective persons to possess weapons. Nor shall this be construed to establish any new federal power.
 
And why should moving to, or travelling through, another state or town infringe upon a basic right that I enjoy at home?


It shouldn't.

It doesn't infringe on your rights at all though. It only specifies that when you're visiting somewhere other than home, you abide by the laws of wherever you are visiting. If the speed limit at home is 75 and it is 55 where you're visiting, you drive 55 mph. If public drunkenness is okay in your state but isn't okay in Kansas, when you're in Kansas you do what Kansans expect. No big deal. Even under the oppressive authoritarian federal government we now live under, that has always been the case.
 
It doesn't infringe on your rights at all though. It only specifies that when you're visiting somewhere other than home, you abide by the laws of wherever you are visiting. If the speed limit at home is 75 and it is 55 where you're visiting, you drive 55 mph. If public drunkenness is okay in your state but isn't okay in Kansas, when you're in Kansas you do what Kansans expect. No big deal. Even under the oppressive authoritarian federal government we now live under, that has always been the case.


Yeah actually it does, just like it does now. Driving a certain speed isn't a right, public drunkenness isn't a right.


Life is a right. Self-defense is a natural right that should be recognized by any legitimate government. Therefore the most effective means of self-defense should be a right.

When you deprive me of the right to bear arms just because I am travelling through some place, you deprive me of the best means to defend my most fundamental right, the right of life, from criminal assault.
 
Yeah actually it does, just like it does now. Driving a certain speed isn't a right, public drunkenness isn't a right.


Life is a right. Self-defense is a natural right that should be recognized by any legitimate government. Therefore the most effective means of self-defense should be a right.

When you deprive me of the right to bear arms just because I am travelling through some place, you deprive me of the best means to defend my most fundamental right, the right of life, from criminal assault.

I see your point on that and we would have to think that through. But realistically, the White House is going to want to retain the right to ensure that armed citizens don't access that building or certain other federal buildings. There will still be some who won't want armed citizens entering court houses or bars or school houses. So those kinds of things we'll have to think through.

My argument here is that in those things that do not affect our unalienable rights, each society should be able to have the society it wants free of federal government interference.
 
No federal law or regulation shall prevent any person being at least 21 years of age to possess and bear nonautomatic weapons on their property. This shall not be construed to prohibit laws restricting the ability of criminally convicted of mentally defective persons to possess weapons. Nor shall this be construed to establish any new federal power.

Too much power to govt and not enough to the people IMO
 
I see your point on that and we would have to think that through. But realistically, the White House is going to want to retain the right to ensure that armed citizens don't access that building or certain other federal buildings. There will still be some who won't want armed citizens entering court houses or bars or school houses. So those kinds of things we'll have to think through.

My argument here is that in those things that do not affect our unalienable rights, each society should be able to have the society it wants free of federal government interference.



Life is certainly the most fundamental of inalienable rights; therefore self-defense is also. Unless you can guarantee my safety against predators (2 or 4 legged) then I assert that you must leave me the most effective means of defending my self, and that depriving me of that means is in fact depriving me of the unalienable right to protect my life against those who would unjustly take it.
 
Life is certainly the most fundamental of inalienable rights; therefore self-defense is also. Unless you can guarantee my safety against predators (2 or 4 legged) then I assert that you must leave me the most effective means of defending my self, and that depriving me of that means is in fact depriving me of the unalienable right to protect my life against those who would unjustly take it.

I would agree, but to what limitation on those rights of self defense.... Wouldn't you agree that would be a states issue and not a federal issue as to limitation?
 
I would agree, but to what limitation on those rights of self defense.... Wouldn't you agree that would be a states issue and not a federal issue as to limitation?



Not on a fundamental rights issue.


We decided as a nation, back around 1865, that we would not allow individual States to decide who was free and who was slave.

A century later, we decided as a nation that allowing individual States to have institutional discrimination based on race was not going to be permitted.


These were both decisions based on protecting the fundamental rights of the citizenry, in all the land called America. No State has the authority to abrogate fundamental rights of a citizen... right? California can't tell you to convert to Islam; NY can't tell you that speaking Yiddish is against the law in Manhattan; Texas can't ban gays from flying rainbow flags; North Carolina can't suddenly decide NC State Troopers can search your house without a warrant; Michigan cannot quarter troops in your home; Idaho can't decide that the punishment for drunk driving is to be burned at the stake.


Fundamental rights are supposed to be universal.
 
Life is certainly the most fundamental of inalienable rights; therefore self-defense is also. Unless you can guarantee my safety against predators (2 or 4 legged) then I assert that you must leave me the most effective means of defending my self, and that depriving me of that means is in fact depriving me of the unalienable right to protect my life against those who would unjustly take it.

The way I look at it the White House is a private residence and therefore the president should be able to pick rules for their residence. As far as other public buildings I think although it should not be in the constitution but as a practical matter they should allow illegal carry wherever they do not have strong access control with armed guards
 
Not on a fundamental rights issue.


We decided as a nation, back around 1865, that we would not allow individual States to decide who was free and who was slave.

A century later, we decided as a nation that allowing individual States to have institutional discrimination based on race was not going to be permitted.


These were both decisions based on protecting the fundamental rights of the citizenry, in all the land called America. No State has the authority to abrogate fundamental rights of a citizen... right? California can't tell you to convert to Islam; NY can't tell you that speaking Yiddish is against the law in Manhattan; Texas can't ban gays from flying rainbow flags; North Carolina can't suddenly decide NC State Troopers can search your house without a warrant; Michigan cannot quarter troops in your home; Idaho can't decide that the punishment for drunk driving is to be burned at the stake.


Fundamental rights are supposed to be universal.

I agree in theory to everything you say - yet who tells the guy using a mini-gun to hunt deer he cannot and should not be using it for that purpose?

Or .. is that ok to use? (Next up is RPG's to go fishing). :mrgreen:
 
And why should moving to, or travelling through, another state or town infringe upon a basic right that I enjoy at home?


It shouldn't.

Just don't travel then.

(In other threads, I've been told to just change my state if I don't like my state laws. If you don't like the laws of the states through which you are traveling - don't go there)

However, this is a STRONG argument for federal gun laws - uniform laws across the entire country, rather than the piecemeal state-by-state laws that we have right now.

I recommend California's laws as the blueprint...
 
I agree in theory to everything you say - yet who tells the guy using a mini-gun to hunt deer he cannot and should not be using it for that purpose?

Or .. is that ok to use? (Next up is RPG's to go fishing). :mrgreen:




We already have an existing standard of review for this... Strict Scrutiny.

Under SS, to restrict a right the restriction must be

1. NECESSARY to the function and preservation of society.
2. NARROWLY construed.
3. LEAST restrictive means possible of achieving the necessary goal.


It would certainly be necessary to society to restrict the possession of nuclear weapons.

It would certainly be necessary to society to exercise some care regarding the possession and use of high explosive devices.


Etc.
 
Just don't travel then.

(In other threads, I've been told to just change my state if I don't like my state laws. If you don't like the laws of the states through which you are traveling - don't go there)

However, this is a STRONG argument for federal gun laws - uniform laws across the entire country, rather than the piecemeal state-by-state laws that we have right now.

I recommend California's laws as the blueprint...



I'd disagree strongly on the latter point and decline to cooperate. :)
 
Not on a fundamental rights issue.


We decided as a nation, back around 1865, that we would not allow individual States to decide who was free and who was slave.

A century later, we decided as a nation that allowing individual States to have institutional discrimination based on race was not going to be permitted.


These were both decisions based on protecting the fundamental rights of the citizenry, in all the land called America. No State has the authority to abrogate fundamental rights of a citizen... right? California can't tell you to convert to Islam; NY can't tell you that speaking Yiddish is against the law in Manhattan; Texas can't ban gays from flying rainbow flags; North Carolina can't suddenly decide NC State Troopers can search your house without a warrant; Michigan cannot quarter troops in your home; Idaho can't decide that the punishment for drunk driving is to be burned at the stake.


Fundamental rights are supposed to be universal.

but I don't know what fundamental rights are.....are they supposed to be natural rights...or privileges as stated in constitutional law
 
but I don't know what fundamental rights are.....are they supposed to be natural rights...or privileges as stated in constitutional law



Life, liberty and property. All other rights stem from these.


The right to bear arms stems from the right to self-defense, which stems from the right to life (to not be deprived of life by man except upon due process of law).

The right of free persons to bear arms has been spoken of for millennia, and codified on many occasions. The main difference in modern times is that we hold all persons (not currently incarcerated by due process) to be free.
 
Just don't travel then.

(In other threads, I've been told to just change my state if I don't like my state laws. If you don't like the laws of the states through which you are traveling - don't go there)

However, this is a STRONG argument for federal gun laws - uniform laws across the entire country, rather than the piecemeal state-by-state laws that we have right now.

I recommend California's laws as the blueprint...

Why not Washington states laws? Or Minnesotas laws? California's laws are a non starter, that's the very definition a scheme meant to make gun owners third class citizens and discourage ownership california is in some ways worse then canada
 
Life, liberty and property. All other rights stem from these.


The right to bear arms stems from the right to self-defense, which stems from the right to life (to not be deprived of life by man except upon due process of law).

The right of free persons to bear arms has been spoken of for millennia, and codified on many occasions. The main difference in modern times is that we hold all persons (not currently incarcerated by due process) to be free.

then you mean natural rights then, not fundamental rights.

no rights can be codified, because to do that would make it positive law.

natural rights are negative law, or unwritten law.

what I am doing to trying to make things clear, the only things in the constitution are natural rights, and privileges and immunities, that's all.

when people use other terms then these its creates confusion.
 
then you mean natural rights then, not fundamental rights.

no rights can be codified, because to do that would make it positive law.

natural rights are negative law, or unwritten law.

what I am doing to trying to make things clear, the only things in the constitution are natural rights, and privileges and immunities, that's all.

when people use other terms then these its creates confusion.



Natural/fundamental or Martian, I don't care what you call it.... I'm not recognizing any government that doesn't recognize those rights, and the rights that logically flow from same.
 
sorry......

but if we are going to write a new constitution, and a new bill of rights.....

this is one of the areas where there will have to be some changes

i have zero issue with any citizen owning guns.....but lets make it reasonable, shall we

1. somehow, someway we need to make sure we can get guns away from people that have KNOWN psychological issues.....if you have been determined to suffer from schizophrenia, or a number of other illnesses, do we really want guns around you? yes....it will have to be debated, and some people will want more restrictions, and some others will want none.....maybe we can meet in the middle and maybe save a few lives

2. i dont want to tread on the militias, or some of the other groups....but is there a number of weapons that any one individual should own? not a deal breaker for me, but i think it should be up for discussion

3. i would love to eliminate automatic weapons.....i dont think it is possible, but it is on my wish list

i dont think there is any need for every gun to be registered.....i know that is a big thing....

again....dont want to take away your guns......but modifying the law slightly to keep them out of the hands of crazy people seems like a good idea to me
Sounds like typical gun-grabber bull****.
 
I agree in theory to everything you say - yet who tells the guy using a mini-gun to hunt deer he cannot and should not be using it for that purpose?
No one tells him. Miniguns are ****ing heavy. If you can successfully hunt a deer while lugging around a minigun then I think you earned the shot.

Miniguns are also expensive. A 1 second shot costs a few hondred dollars. So I think if someone can even afford to hunt with a minigun then they can afford a machinegun stamp for that season, too.
 
No one tells him. Miniguns are ****ing heavy. If you can successfully hunt a deer while lugging around a minigun then I think you earned the shot.
Pickup mounted was what I was thinking.

Miniguns are also expensive. A 1 second shot costs a few hondred dollars. So I think if someone can even afford to hunt with a minigun then they can afford a machinegun stamp for that season, too.
True - cost can keep them relatively scarce.

I'm just pushing on the question about limitations - I agree with Goshin's view but as with humans - we push boundaries. If there are limitations I'd like to hear reasonable discussion about what and why - I'm not opposed to NO limitations either - as long as those who wish to use weaponry to hurt others can be confronted with equal or better yet, more and overwhelming force.
 
Natural/fundamental or Martian, I don't care what you call it.... I'm not recognizing any government that doesn't recognize those rights, and the rights that logically flow from same.

I wish you would join us on the "Unalienable rights" thread. I need the backup. :)

But I'm with you. Unless somebody can give me a very good argument as to why we should have a Constitution that does NOT recognize and secure our unalienable (or aka natural or aka God given) rights, then the entire exercise is not something I can support. There are several who reject the concept of natural rights, but not one has yet provided a coherent argument for why such do not exist or how their point of view does not give government the authority to assign to the people the rights they will have rather than the other way around.

Government should be a tool, if you will, of a free people who have claimed all the blessings of liberty. The right to self defense, even from one's own government, and the right to one's own security, and the right to use a firearm for recreation, or to put an injured animal out of its misery, or just to have and appreciate should definitely be considered a natural right.
 
I wish you would join us on the "Unalienable rights" thread. I need the backup. :)

But I'm with you. Unless somebody can give me a very good argument as to why we should have a Constitution that does NOT recognize and secure our unalienable (or aka natural or aka God given) rights, then the entire exercise is not something I can support.

Isn't it a bit early to threaten to take your ball and go home if you don't get your way?
 
Back
Top Bottom