• 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

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

If compromise is not forthcoming, support is pulled. It doesn't mean someone is quitting the entire exercise but will not support this portion of the constitution and given a vote would vote against it's ratification. I actually share AlbqOwl's view in this - if our natural right to self defense is not supported, I couldn't support this either.
 
Isn't it a bit early to threaten to take your ball and go home if you don't get your way?

I didn't threaten to take my ball and go home if I don't get my way. I am just saying that I won't accept a new Constitution that does not recognize and protect unalienable rights, whatever we choose to call those.

That is no different than saying I won't accept a new Constitution that condones slavery or denies rights to any group of citizens.
 
I have a question for those proposing the right to bear arms, particularly those discussing grenades and suitcase nukes etc. When the original founders codified it, the firearms available at the time were largely personal and cumbersome. Far less capable than the weapons we have today. Part of the issue that I and others have with the original rights is that now, 250 years down the line, we have weapons that the founders could barely dream of.

Now consider if the same thing happens to us. What about 100 years down the line when scientists invent the handheld death laser that is capable of demolishing buildings? Should people have the right to own and carry that?

The right to bear arms does not logically follow from the right to self defense, any more than the right to have a robot bodyguard follows from it. If I were to subscribe to natural rights, then I can agree that the right to self defense as being natural, but the right to bear arms simply is not natural, how can it be? I understand natural rights to be pretty much timeless. Look 100 years down the line where everybody has a nanobot safety defense shield, the right to bear arms becomes obsolete as methods for self defense change.

I also would like to iterate that my position above does not mean that citizens would not be able to own guns, but rather owning guns is a privilege, rather than a right. Gun ownership for hunting would be completely allowable, even if the right to own guns didn't exist. Each one of us has plenty of possessions today that isn't necessarily codified as a right by law.
 
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.

Even the most basic of rights come with terms and limitations. Owning a home, for example, is a pretty basic right buy localities can apply limits to that through regulations relating to zoning, and safety, etc
 
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.

Natural rights from God are a belief system that cannot be proven to exist independently of the self imposed belief to believe. It is as much part of religion as any dogma. As such, it should play no role at all in this exercise.
 
If compromise is not forthcoming, support is pulled. It doesn't mean someone is quitting the entire exercise but will not support this portion of the constitution and given a vote would vote against it's ratification. I actually share AlbqOwl's view in this - if our natural right to self defense is not supported, I couldn't support this either.

You are confusing what you mistakenly call a RIGHT to self defense with a mere ability or even instinct that comes with being human. Natural rights from God or gods or entities in space handing out rights like so much Halloween candy to cutely costumed toddlers are part of a belief system that cannot be proven to exist independently of the self imposed belief to believe. It is as much part of religion as any dogma. As such, it should play no role at all in this exercise.
 
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.



The original Bill of Rights was controversial also. Some said it was unnecessary; that the existing limitations on government's power (section 8) meant the Fedgov COULD NOT infringe on any citizen's rights. Some said a BoR enumerating CERTAIN rights would be misconstrued to mean ONLY those rights were protected, and not others.


I think we've clearly seen, over the past 200 years, that we DID need that Bill of Rights.... that indeed, it would have been well if it had been more extensive, for government has a tendency to GROW, to expand its mandate far beyond what was originally proscribed.. and that "you cannot infringe here" (BoR) has been somewhat more effective over time, than "you can only do these few things" (Section8).
 
I have a question for those proposing the right to bear arms, particularly those discussing grenades and suitcase nukes etc. When the original founders codified it, the firearms available at the time were largely personal and cumbersome. Far less capable than the weapons we have today. Part of the issue that I and others have with the original rights is that now, 250 years down the line, we have weapons that the founders could barely dream of.

Now consider if the same thing happens to us. What about 100 years down the line when scientists invent the handheld death laser that is capable of demolishing buildings? Should people have the right to own and carry that?

The right to bear arms does not logically follow from the right to self defense, any more than the right to have a robot bodyguard follows from it. If I were to subscribe to natural rights, then I can agree that the right to self defense as being natural, but the right to bear arms simply is not natural, how can it be? I understand natural rights to be pretty much timeless. Look 100 years down the line where everybody has a nanobot safety defense shield, the right to bear arms becomes obsolete as methods for self defense change.

I also would like to iterate that my position above does not mean that citizens would not be able to own guns, but rather owning guns is a privilege, rather than a right. Gun ownership for hunting would be completely allowable, even if the right to own guns didn't exist. Each one of us has plenty of possessions today that isn't necessarily codified as a right by law.

If the Constitution recognizes unalienable rights, all that is not specifically regulated is codified as a right by law. This is a far more practical approach that trying to draft a document that spells out everything that IS a right.

As for whether certain weapons should be restricted from general use, I do believe that deserves an open and honest airing. Frankly, I would not want my neighbor who gets crazy drunk and disorderly on Saturday nights to have access to a fully armed and functional battle tank or 105mm recoilless rifle in his back yard. And I don't want our local police having to face down an automatic machine gun or rocket launchers in the hands of violent gang members or out-of-control protesters.

On the other hand, has everybody seen the original movie "Tremors"? Characters Burt and Heather Gummer had an enormous arsenal, including an elephant gun, in their basement that allowed them to kill one of the monsters. You never know when you might need such a thing. . . .

So it all belongs in the debate.
 
You are confusing what you mistakenly call a RIGHT to self defense with a mere ability or even instinct that comes with being human. Natural rights from God or gods or entities in space handing out rights like so much Halloween candy to cutely costumed toddlers are part of a belief system that cannot be proven to exist independently of the self imposed belief to believe. It is as much part of religion as any dogma. As such, it should play no role at all in this exercise.


I don't care what term you use.... but your rights and liberties as an individual are more secure if they are construed as being Natural or Inherent or Unalienable, than if they are construed as being arbitrarily granted or withheld by
Government.



Also I am firmly of the opinion that natural or unalienable rights require no religion to uphold.... just the realization that if all humans recognize that all other humans have certain fundamental rights, we're all better off, and that those rights flow freely and naturally from our fundamental nature and needs.


Life.... obvious.

Liberty... one should be able to decide, choose and act freely where one's actions do not harm others... and "harm" should be construed rather narrowly.

Property... where one has mixed one's labor (or money) with the land, one should hold certain rights, and also to the product of one's labor, except as limited by "harm to others" above.


Absent these, and those rights that clearly stem from them, you cannot have a just and decent society.
 
Pickup mounted was what I was thinking.
Can't hunt from a vehicle. Not any game, not any season, not any weapon. I think the only exeption is a disabled hunter license shooting from a 4-wheeler, and that's just a few states.

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.
Of course there will be limitations but here we're only talking about the Constitution, the starting point. There will be numerous court cases to follw, don't give away your compromises right off the bat.
 
If the Constitution recognizes unalienable rights, all that is not specifically regulated is codified as a right by law. This is a far more practical approach that trying to draft a document that spells out everything that IS a right.

As for whether certain weapons should be restricted from general use, I do believe that deserves an open and honest airing. Frankly, I would not want my neighbor who gets crazy drunk and disorderly on Saturday nights to have access to a fully armed and functional battle tank or 105mm recoilless rifle in his back yard. And I don't want our local police having to face down an automatic machine gun or rocket launchers in the hands of violent gang members or out-of-control protesters.

On the other hand, has everybody seen the original movie "Tremors"? Characters Burt and Heather Gummer had an enormous arsenal, including an elephant gun, in their basement that allowed them to kill one of the monsters. You never know when you might need such a thing. . . .

So it all belongs in the debate.


Things like 105mm artillery and battle tanks are already things ordinary citizens can own under Class 3 or aow rules, and there are people that do own them... and so far this has not been much if any of a problem.


They're expensive. They're also expensive to feed (ammo). They're not exactly handy or convenient to use either. Very few people, other than wealthy collectors, own them.

Their use in crime has been just about Nil.


Are we not panicking about things that are not really a problem??
 
I don't care what term you use.... but your rights and liberties as an individual are more secure if they are construed as being Natural or Inherent or Unalienable, than if they are construed as being arbitrarily granted or withheld by
Government.



Also I am firmly of the opinion that natural or unalienable rights require no religion to uphold.... just the realization that if all humans recognize that all other humans have certain fundamental rights, we're all better off, and that those rights flow freely and naturally from our fundamental nature and needs.


Life.... obvious.

Liberty... one should be able to decide, choose and act freely where one's actions do not harm others... and "harm" should be construed rather narrowly.

Property... where one has mixed one's labor (or money) with the land, one should hold certain rights, and also to the product of one's labor, except as limited by "harm to others" above.


Absent these, and those rights that clearly stem from them, you cannot have a just and decent society.

I understand and respect that you believe a belief in natural rights achieves a basic good. However, there is no evidence that such a belief is necessary to achieve a good foundation for government.

A self imposed belief in unprovable fantasy - be it religion or any other sort of attempted high fallutin BS - is still faith based and should have no place in these proceedings.
 
Natural rights from God are a belief system that cannot be proven to exist independently of the self imposed belief to believe. It is as much part of religion as any dogma. As such, it should play no role at all in this exercise.

Like another member here, you can choose to get hung up on the term used, or use the definition that has nothing to do with a 'belief system' or any religion. Those who believe in God sometimes use the term 'God given'. The non religious use the term 'natural' rights. The Founders chose a middle ground between the two with the term 'unalienable rights'.

So let's drop the diversionary tactics to derail the discussion and focus on the concept rather than the term used to designate it, okay?
 
Like another member here, you can choose to get hung up on the term used, or use the definition that has nothing to do with a 'belief system' or any religion. Those who believe in God sometimes use the term 'God given'. The non religious use the term 'natural' rights. The Founders chose a middle ground between the two with the term 'unalienable rights'.

So let's drop the diversionary tactics to derail the discussion and focus on the concept rather than the term used to designate it, okay?

Six of one half dozen of the other. A distinction without a real difference.

Natural rights from God.... natural rights from nature .... there is no difference are both are faith based self imposed beliefs which cannot be proven to exist aside from a self imposed belief. And neither should enter into this process.
 
Can't hunt from a vehicle. Not any game, not any season, not any weapon. I think the only exeption is a disabled hunter license shooting from a 4-wheeler, and that's just a few states.
I don't think our constitution (the one we are working to create) has deemed hunting from a vehicle is illegal. It's my understanding that our constitution will remake what we currently use and while we can use our current constitution as a guide, it does not assume existing laws are set in stone.

Of course there will be limitations but here we're only talking about the Constitution, the starting point. There will be numerous court cases to follw, don't give away your compromises right off the bat.

Agreed.
 
The original Bill of Rights was controversial also. Some said it was unnecessary; that the existing limitations on government's power (section 8) meant the Fedgov COULD NOT infringe on any citizen's rights. Some said a BoR enumerating CERTAIN rights would be misconstrued to mean ONLY those rights were protected, and not others.


I think we've clearly seen, over the past 200 years, that we DID need that Bill of Rights.... that indeed, it would have been well if it had been more extensive, for government has a tendency to GROW, to expand its mandate far beyond what was originally proscribed.. and that "you cannot infringe here" (BoR) has been somewhat more effective over time, than "you can only do these few things" (Section8).

It has definitely been useful at times to have that Bill of Rights--it has at least partially protected the unalienable rights the Founders intended to be recognized and secured. The problem with the Bill of Rights, however, is that insufficient care was taken to ensure that subsequent opportunistic lawyers, politicians, and activists would not be able to rewrite that intent and would not be able to appoint judges who would uphold their rewrite.

I'm not sure we can correct that with a newly drafted constitution, but I sure would like to try.
 
I understand and respect that you believe a belief in natural rights achieves a basic good. However, there is no evidence that such a belief is necessary to achieve a good foundation for government.

A self imposed belief in unprovable fantasy - be it religion or any other sort of attempted high fallutin BS - is still faith based and should have no place in these proceedings.



OK. YOU go live somewhere that declines to recognize basic human rights and let us know how that goes for ya. I hear Iran is nice this time of year.


I mean holy Hannah, is it not fricken' OBVIOUS how much better off we are when fundamental human rights are recognized and accepted as inalienable??


It's like arguing about whether spring water is better than drinking from a sewer pipe.
 
Things like 105mm artillery and battle tanks are already things ordinary citizens can own under Class 3 or aow rules, and there are people that do own them... and so far this has not been much if any of a problem.


They're expensive. They're also expensive to feed (ammo). They're not exactly handy or convenient to use either. Very few people, other than wealthy collectors, own them.

Their use in crime has been just about Nil.


Are we not panicking about things that are not really a problem??

Did I give the impression that I was panicking? I certainly did not intend to do so. I did provide some examples of what I would be uncomfortable with and what I believe deserves a good airing before we draft the equivalent of a new 2nd Amendment if we decide to do that. Experience with existing laws, pro and con, of course is useful to consider in drafting a new constitution, most especially in areas that they have been misunderstood, made controversial, misused, misinterpreted, etc. I am assuming we intend to correct such problems as exist in the old Constitution and do a better job with a new one. :)
 
Six of one half dozen of the other. A distinction without a real difference.

Natural rights from God.... natural rights from nature .... there is no difference are both are faith based self imposed beliefs which cannot be proven to exist aside from a self imposed belief. And neither should enter into this process.

So I can put you down as one who denies their existence without acknowledging the definition provided and without making any argument for why they are not a reality?
 
Did I give the impression that I was panicking? I certainly did not intend to do so. I did provide some examples of what I would be uncomfortable with and what I believe deserves a good airing before we draft the equivalent of a new 2nd Amendment if we decide to do that. Experience with existing laws, pro and con, of course is useful to consider in drafting a new constitution, most especially in areas that they have been misunderstood, made controversial, misused, misinterpreted, etc. I am assuming we intend to correct such problems as exist in the old Constitution and do a better job with a new one. :)


If we keep the principle of Strict Scrutiny, then any right can be restricted if it meets that criteria, whose foremost point is "1. NECESSARY to the existence and function of society".

I doubt that any version of the 2A would prevent society from quickly imposing some regulations on things like WMD, high explosives, and artillery, under Strict Scrutiny.
 
If we keep the principle of Strict Scrutiny, then any right can be restricted if it meets that criteria, whose foremost point is "1. NECESSARY to the existence and function of society".

I doubt that any version of the 2A would prevent society from quickly imposing some regulations on things like WMD, high explosives, and artillery, under Strict Scrutiny.

I have no problem with much discretion in those things to be left to the states and local communities to determine.
 
I have no problem with much discretion in those things to be left to the states and local communities to determine.


That would be where we disagree. There is a reason why most of the BoR has been incorporated against the States.... otherwise we end up with a patchwork of states (and maybe counties and cities) where your fundamental rights differ dramatically even though it is the same country.


Would you support severe restrictions on free speech in Austin Texas? The death penalty for abortion in Alabama? What if South Carolina decided to make Protestant Christianity the state religion and repress all others?


See my point?
 
OK. YOU go live somewhere that declines to recognize basic human rights and let us know how that goes for ya. I hear Iran is nice this time of year.


I mean holy Hannah, is it not fricken' OBVIOUS how much better off we are when fundamental human rights are recognized and accepted as inalienable??


It's like arguing about whether spring water is better than drinking from a sewer pipe.

Actually its not. It is the difference between believing in some quaint convention from antiquity or accepting what is real and true. People get their rights from a very sikmple pragmatic real world process. Enough people demand that a certain behavior be a RIGHT and then they exert enough power or influence or force upon government to recognize that behavior and protect it as a RIGHT.

That is simply the way it is. All the other trappings are just fanciful conventions to oppose the divine right of kings which died a sure death a very long time ago.
 
I prefer to limit the national government to it's designated powers (assuming we agree to limit it) and leave out a Bill of Rights altogether.

Maybe something like:

This union shall never be construed to have any powers to hinder, limit, or restrict in any way the possession, use, sale, or transfer of weapons by the people of the member states. Any power to do so is retained by the sovereign member states.
 
That would be where we disagree. There is a reason why most of the BoR has been incorporated against the States.... otherwise we end up with a patchwork of states (and maybe counties and cities) where your fundamental rights differ dramatically even though it is the same country.


Would you support severe restrictions on free speech in Austin Texas? The death penalty for abortion in Alabama? What if South Carolina decided to make Protestant Christianity the state religion and repress all others?


See my point?

Yes, I do. And this is why the centuries old concept of states should be treated differently than it was 230 years ago.
 
Back
Top Bottom