Right to Arms in the 21st Century

dbcooper
When it comes to gun control in the 21st century, it must be taken into account that many of the perpetrators of such violence don’t give one flying fuck if they survive or not. When it comes to fundamental Islamic terrorists, they have no intention of surviving, unless it’s long enough to commit another atrocity.
this statement is completely true

fundamental Islamic terrorists go into the situation knowing they are going to see ALLAH soon rather than later so response is reaction

however many perpetrators of mass shootings believe they are going to survive even if they dont have an exit plan they tend to be losers and cowards and not rational enough to think things through so response will tend to be preventive

side note run scenario threw your head if people who dont know each other are armed during active shooter how long before it becomes cluster f–k of people shooting each other not knowing who the active shooter or shooters are,were

One can’t be both a proponent of gun control and a proponent of the concept of natural rights. There is no way to limit the arms another man possesses that is at all consistent with the concept of natural rights. The only way to limit another’s arms is to reject the concept of natural rights in favor of legal rights(i.e., the concept that some are more equal than others).

One can always give up HIS arms, but one can’t demand that another give up the arms he rightfully(that is, acquired without violating the life, liberty, or property of another) possesses.

If my neighbor owns a kitchen knife, and neither I nor my other neighbor believes that he should own that knife; we can’t give up our own knives, take the knife-possessor’s knives, and claim that we have respected his rights to life, liberty, and property.

i believe that if my neighbor owns a gun, that if someone kicks in his door and he uses his gun for defense that he has put some thought and training into how he responds and does not put rounds through my house
i live in an area where most houses dont have brick
shotgun with bird shot probably stay in his target or house unless he shoots window
ak47 probably go threw 2 or 3 houses unless the rounds hit something solid first
however many people are not going to train or think in advance
about 2 miles from my house a little girl died when a round from a 9mm fired a block away went threw her bedroom wall

[quote]NickViar wrote:
One can’t be both a proponent of gun control and a proponent of the concept of natural rights. There is no way to limit the arms another man possesses that is at all consistent with the concept of natural rights. The only way to limit another’s arms is to reject the concept of natural rights in favor of legal rights(i.e., the concept that some are more equal than others).

One can always give up HIS arms, but one can’t demand that another give up the arms he rightfully(that is, acquired without violating the life, liberty, or property of another) possesses.

If my neighbor owns a kitchen knife, and neither I nor my other neighbor believes that he should own that knife; we can’t give up our own knives, take the knife-possessor’s knives, and claim that we have respected his rights to life, liberty, and property.[/quote]

You can certainly believe in gun control and Natural Rights at the same time, just like you can believe in a less-than absolute freedom of speech and Natural Rights at the same time.

In a State of Nature, people have the ability to act with perfect freedom, meaning that the only thing to stop them from expressing their free will in any form they choose is the presence of some sort of force that can physically stop them from doing so. In such a situation, our security is threatened by those who are physically bigger, or those who can form the larger faction.

We quit such a state in order to retain the security of our beings and possessions. The idea is that people of a like mind come together and form a society. Ideally, the form of gov’t they create offers a protection of some sort from those who would disregard the liberties of others.

Your argument is sort of like saying you can’t believe in keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of madmen and still believe in Natural Rights. The right to bear arms is simply a particular form of self-defense. If the right to bear arms in furtherance of securing a free State is an extension of our Natural Rights, certainly the category under which gun rights falls (the right to self-defense) is also a Natural Right.

But no one acknowledges in here that the right to self-defense is so pure as to allow for the right to a private nuclear missile silo, complete with an armed missile. And yet, would you offer forth the argument that those people are contradicting themselves if they also claim to believe in Natural Rights?

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

My argument is that infringing upon your rights to gun ownership and acquisition supersedes the right itself if it proves to be a better form of self-defense.

I argue this because, in my opinion, the right to self-defense is necessarily superior to the right to own and use a gun. I further argue that this point is obviously, blatantly clear. Gun ownership is a species of self-defense, self-defense being its genus but also a species of Natural Rights.

If the limitation of gun ownership, jumping through hoops, infringing, whatever, can be shown to be a better form of self-defense against gun violence than putting MORE guns into people’s hands, then there is no reason to continue pandering to your side of the argument.

[/quote]

This is the craziest notion I’ve ever encountered on this subject. It’s Orwellian doublespeak. Demented even. Pittbullian?

I, Bert the Mighty, do hereby decree that we can remove all firearms from society without violating the Constitution or natural law if we can convince (dupe) the folks into thinking it is a superior form of self-defense.

Good grief.

[/quote]

If you don’t understand the point I am making from a purely logical standpoint, I’m not sure if it serves any further purpose to continue here.

My point is this: Natural Rights>>>>>self-defense>>>>>>gun control.

You and I are certainly in agreement that Natural Rights are superior to all other rights, correct? Certainly, they are FAR superior to political rights.

Natural Rights, as a genus, has several species underneath it. Life, liberty, estate, and the right to defend such things serve as species of Natural Rights.

Life essentially needs no further categorization, certainly not for the purpose of this thread.

Liberty is a vague enough notion as is, so let’s also set that one aside as well.

Property as a right has never been construed to be limited strictly to physical possessions. Madison makes the point in Federalist #10 that the final end of gov’t is to protect man’s ability to acquire property of any and all kinds. By applying the same rules/protection to everyone, and given that everyone has unequal faculties when it comes to acquiring property, the equal protection of the law must necessarily lead to unequal results. It’s the same point that Cicero and others have made, that to strive for perfect equality in society is itself unequal since it requires equal results from people of unequal merit. #10 also essentially serves as an extremely clairvoyant and increasingly relevant argument against socialism in all of its forms. But I digress.

The right to self-defense is also a Natural Right, and it has many different species. Just like there are all sorts of different forms of liberty (such as free speech, religious freedom, etc.) and each form has species underneath it, so, too, does self-defense have many species.

James Madison would have argued that the best form of self-defense for the nation as a whole was the United States itself. The lessons of the Achaean or Amphyctionic League were not lost on him.

To Madison and many of the other Enlightenment thinkers from whom your rationale is derived, the republican form of gov’t was an excellent form of self-defense.

Perhaps you missed my thinly veiled borrowing of an excerpt from #45. Madison makes the point crystal fucking clear that the danger in pursuing the Articles of Confederation necessarily means that anti-Federalists are placing more importance on the form of gov’t than the liberty for which they had fought. Madison’s entire argument can basically be summed up as such: liberty itself is more important than any form of gov’t, and as such, the final end should always be the form of gov’t that protects liberty, even if it means the decidedly less libertarian form of gov’t that exists under the Constitution than under the Articles of Confederation.

The point I am making is very similar to Madison’s, that you are placing the form of protection above that which guns purportedly protect. Gun rights are protected not for the sake of owning guns, but as a further deterrent to a loss of life, liberty, and property. If another form of self-defense can be shown to be superior to the protection of gun rights, then there is no logical reason for gun rights to supersede this other theoretical form.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]cavemansam wrote:
dbcooper
, I’ll conceded my point. But I really have a hard time understanding how a shooting is less likely when there are MORE guns in the hands of well-minded people than when there are NO guns in the hands of criminally-minded people. Your solution simply calls to be reactionary. Every. Single. Time.

risk versus reward simple
the knowing that your victim can defend themselves increases risk decreases reward

ever here about mass shooting at a gun show? wonder why?
wonder why mass shootings happen at gun free zones?
reactionary, maybe not how about preventive[/quote]

That’s exactly why these crazed shooters often pick gun free zones. Schools, movie theaters, places of employment. As you say how come we never hear of a would be mass shooter opening up at a gun show or hunting club?

It seem very obvious to me that if the good guys are carrying weapons the bad guys are either not going to attack or if they do will go down in a flame of fire in return before many casualties can be totaled.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the left wants to disarm honest hard working citizens who simply want to protect themselves and their families. But then again I have for many years thought of liberalism as a sort of mental disorder. And I think our current President is proving this to be true with virtually every decision he makes.
[/quote]

Don’t lump me in with “the left”. I’m not calling for hard-working, honest people to have their guns taken away. I’m calling for a process by which getting a gun is made more difficult for psychopaths like the two fuckers in San Berdoo. If that isn’t a form of self-defense, then I don’t know what is.

I’m not even necessarily arguing that it is definitively a superior form. But I AM arguing that the right to own a gun is a species of self-defense rights, and as such, limiting gun rights makes logical sense IF it can be shown that doing so is an effective form of self-defense.

As far as the gun show thing goes, fine. But let me ask you this: when was the last time a psychotic WITHOUT a gun perpetrated a mass shooting?

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Miami,

Moreover, your view would swallow even restrictions on criminals owning guns. After all, why would someone guilty of felony tax evasion forfeit their God-given right to self-defense or defense against a tyrannical government? Why even would someone guilty of murder? A murderer who has done his time and paid his debt to society is still entitled to defend himself against violence from both fellow citizens and a tyrannical government, right?

Surely?[/quote]

You kind of answered your own question. We attempt to restrict a persons rights after due process. A felon doesn’t forfeit their rights, they forfeit the government not infringing on them.

It is a big difference even if it seems minuscule. Without that difference we end up with government infringement FOR exercising rights.

[/quote]

Nope - inalienable natural rights exist inhere because of a person’s mere existence. There is no Due Process that can override them. That’s entire point of them being “natural” - a legislature can’t define your right out of existence just because a majority wants to.

And a law defining certain conduct as a felony is not different than any other law that was passed and implemented under Due Process. The fact that it entails criminal behavior is irrelevant - it’s a distinction without a difference.

In short, your answer misapprehends Due Process. You either have natural rights, or you don’t, regardless of what a legislature passes. And so, if you truly believe in unqualified natural rights to self-defense and its apparent corollary around these parts that by extension you can own any arm you want, you can’t believe that any law restricting a felon - any felon - is valid.

Right?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[/quote]

You kind of answered your own question. We attempt to restrict a persons rights after due process. A felon doesn’t forfeit their rights, they forfeit the government not infringing on them.

It is a big difference even if it seems minuscule. Without that difference we end up with government infringement FOR exercising rights.

[/quote]

Nope - inalienable natural rights exist inhere because of a person’s mere existence. There is no Due Process that can override them. That’s entire point of them being “natural” - a legislature can’t define your right out of existence just because a majority wants to.

[/quote]

Reread what I wrote. I did not say they cease to exist.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Nope, you’re still getting it wrong but it helps me understand your perspective on this matter. A wrong perspective – wrong fundamentals – will surely cause faulty reasoning down the line.

If the Second Amendment were repealed the fundamental right to self defense, and to overthrow tyranny, would not be lost. It would still remain an inalienable right and that is crystal, fucking clear by reading what any of the founders and framers had to say about the matter not to mention others who preceded them. If it were repealed the right would then fall under the Ninth Amendment; it wouldn’t just evaporate.[/quote]

Sure, you’re here to lecture us on what is and is not faulty reasoning. Hilarious.

In any event, no, if the Second Amendment was repealed, you wouldn’t have any defense to own whatever arms you wanted to (see above) and the Ninth Amendment wouldn’t save you either - it wasn’t intended to grant substantive rights. Many libertarians gets starry-eyed as to the Ninth Amendment and see it as a kind of “rights generator”, a source of rights they want to see protected in name that are otherwise not mentioned anywhere else (by appropriately activist courts) but it isn’t and was never intended to be.

And right of revolution has nothing to do with the Second Amendment or the Constitution at all. The Second Amendment doesn’t protect the right of revolution. And the right of revolution doesn’t entitle you to own any arm you want independent of what the Constitution or any other law says. That’s absurd.

Not exactly. The argument against the Bill of Rights was that they were superfluous -the Constitution was an enumerated grant of powers and there was no need to enumerate what the federal government couldn’t do. It was already taken care of.

Moreover, they didn’t think the right to keep and bear arms was universally recognized - hence they placed no restrictions on the states. They could have, they didn’t.

Same old Push. Will misrepresent just about anything.

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

Reread what I wrote. I did not say they cease to exist. [/quote]

You’re just playing semantics now. If natural rights are justifiably superseded by another form of law, they don’t exist in the sense that they don’t control and no longer have to be honored.

So, the point remains - if the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, which by its nature cannot be superseded by another law, then no law supersedes the right, period.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

Reread what I wrote. I did not say they cease to exist. [/quote]

You’re just playing semantics now. If natural rights are justifiably superseded by another form of law, they don’t exist in the sense that they don’t control and no longer have to be honored.

So, the point remains - if the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, which by its nature cannot be superseded by another law, then no law supersedes the right, period.

[/quote]

You should just jump on my bandwagon. Or is it me who sits on yours?

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

My argument is that infringing upon your rights to gun ownership and acquisition supersedes the right itself if it proves to be a better form of self-defense.

I argue this because, in my opinion, the right to self-defense is necessarily superior to the right to own and use a gun. I further argue that this point is obviously, blatantly clear. Gun ownership is a species of self-defense, self-defense being its genus but also a species of Natural Rights.

If the limitation of gun ownership, jumping through hoops, infringing, whatever, can be shown to be a better form of self-defense against gun violence than putting MORE guns into people’s hands, then there is no reason to continue pandering to your side of the argument.

[/quote]

This is the craziest notion I’ve ever encountered on this subject. It’s Orwellian doublespeak. Demented even. Pittbullian?

I, Bert the Mighty, do hereby decree that we can remove all firearms from society without violating the Constitution or natural law if we can convince (dupe) the folks into thinking it is a superior form of self-defense.

Good grief.

[/quote]

If you don’t understand the point I am making from a purely logical standpoint, I’m not sure if it serves any further purpose to continue here.

My point is this: Natural Rights>>>>>self-defense>>>>>>gun control.

You and I are certainly in agreement that Natural Rights are superior to all other rights, correct? Certainly, they are FAR superior to political rights.

Natural Rights, as a genus, has several species underneath it. Life, liberty, estate, and the right to defend such things serve as species of Natural Rights.

Life essentially needs no further categorization, certainly not for the purpose of this thread.

Liberty is a vague enough notion as is, so let’s also set that one aside as well.

Property as a right has never been construed to be limited strictly to physical possessions. Madison makes the point in Federalist #10 that the final end of gov’t is to protect man’s ability to acquire property of any and all kinds. By applying the same rules/protection to everyone, and given that everyone has unequal faculties when it comes to acquiring property, the equal protection of the law must necessarily lead to unequal results. It’s the same point that Cicero and others have made, that to strive for perfect equality in society is itself unequal since it requires equal results from people of unequal merit. #10 also essentially serves as an extremely clairvoyant and increasingly relevant argument against socialism in all of its forms. But I digress.

The right to self-defense is also a Natural Right, and it has many different species. Just like there are all sorts of different forms of liberty (such as free speech, religious freedom, etc.) and each form has species underneath it, so, too, does self-defense have many species.

James Madison would have argued that the best form of self-defense for the nation as a whole was the United States itself. The lessons of the Achaean or Amphyctionic League were not lost on him.

To Madison and many of the other Enlightenment thinkers from whom your rationale is derived, the republican form of gov’t was an excellent form of self-defense.

Perhaps you missed my thinly veiled borrowing of an excerpt from #51. Madison makes the point crystal fucking clear that the danger in pursuing the Articles of Confederation necessarily means that anti-Federalists are placing more importance on the form of gov’t than the liberty for which they had fought. Madison’s entire argument can basically be summed up as such: liberty itself is more important than any form of gov’t, and as such, the final end should always be the form of gov’t that protects liberty, even if it means the decidedly less libertarian form of gov’t that exists under the Constitution than under the Articles of Confederation.

The point I am making is very similar to Madison’s, that you are placing the form of protection above that which guns purportedly protect. Gun rights are protected not for the sake of owning guns, but as a further deterrent to a loss of life, liberty, and property. If another form of self-defense can be shown to be superior to the protection of gun rights, then there is no logical reason for gun rights to supersede this other theoretical form.[/quote]

At first glance you seem to be advocating for the interests of the collective above that of the individual, i.e., if the collective can make the case that no arms for anyone is more self-defensive than every man with a weapon then wham-bam thank-you-maam, we have ourselves a trump card. No?

I’m going to go deadlift then return and read The Federalist No. 51 and get back to you.
[/quote]

I accidentally typed the wrong one. It’s #45, although #51 is about as good as anything in the collection, short of #10.

Majority Law wins every time, unless it conflicts with the concept of Natural Rights. That is the essence of #10 and the republican form of gov’t, including all of the successive filters represented by the separation and overlapping of the powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial. The rights of the people include the rights to self-determination, participation in the legislative process, etc.

But that right is superseded by Natural Rights in general. No one has the right, even with 100% of the vote, to violate the Natural Rights of others.

And I’m not arguing for the collective making any sort of case. I am saying that if it can be shown–if it IS and not if it SHOULD BE–that making it increasingly difficult for criminally-minded people to get weapons is a legitimate form of self-defense, then it may indeed supersede gun rights.

If doing so finds itself in conflict with your allegedly unassailable right to purchase any gun you want, sorry, but you lose. Your right to swing your arms around just stopped at the tip of someone else’s nose.

This is where the logic side of things come in. I am simply arguing that your form of self-defense only has more veracity than another if it is the MORE EFFECTIVE way of defending one’s self. It sounds to me that you are arguing that gun rights and the right to self-defense are one and the same, as if the terms “car” and “Corvette” are one and the same. Either that, or that gun rights somehow supersede the right to self-defense.

Tell me, Push. Were the Founders wrong in barring Loyalists from owning guns once the war was over? Explain your rationale.