Right to Arms in the 21st Century

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Tell me, Push. Were the Founders wrong in barring Loyalists from owning guns once the war was over? Explain your rationale.[/quote]

Well, Bert, my friend, the Founders did more than just bar the Loyalists from owning guns. They stripped them of their property and did all kinds of dastardly (depending on how you look at it) deeds to them including running them plumb out of the country.

Why? Because they were considered traitors and not citizens of the new republic.

Surely, it’s not unimaginable that one convicted (even a de facto conviction which is what so many Loyalists experienced) of treason could/would be stripped of their rights just like convicts (and traitors) are stripped of their rights even today. Eh?

Next question.[/quote]

De facto conviction? Is this where I post the obligatory bullion?

So a de facto conviction for treason is reason enough to strip Loyalists of their right to bear arms? That doesn’t sound like due process to me. In fact, if anything, it’s MUCH closer to “papers, please”.

The overriding reason for stripping Loyalists of their gun rights, even without due process and even those who were citizens at ratification, is to protect the security and safety of the People of the United States.

At first glance, and at second glance, it seems to me that you are advocating, or at least not condemning, the stripping of a right in furtherance of the COLLECTIVE good.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

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 If natural rights are justifiably superseded by another form of law, they don’t exist in the sense that they don’t control and no longer have to be honored.

So, the point remains - if the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, which by its nature cannot be superseded by another law, then no law supersedes the right, period.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

Yeah, it looks like a great one to jump on. Go for it.
[/quote]

This from the guy who failed to distinguish between a genus and a species and then accused me of creating logic out of thin air.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[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]

Which “natural rights” do you recognize? I refer to life, liberty, and property, when I use the term. If one believes in those natural rights, then only a violation of another’s life, liberty, or property can be justly punished. Ownership of even nuclear weapons does not violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone, so that person can’t be either justly punished for owning the weapon or have the weapon justly taken from him.

And “freedom of speech” is merely a result of the rights to life, liberty, and property. One obviously does not have “freedom of speech” where it violates another’s life, liberty, or property. These sentences may not be worded as well or clearly as I would like them to be.

When we start talking about disallowing ownership of certain weapons, we leave behind the concept of “natural rights” in favor of FDR’s Four Freedoms(freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear-this is where prohibition of certain weapons fits).

If you(anyone) want to restrict others’ rights to life, liberty, and property, then so be it; but don’t do it from behind the concept of natural rights, because that is silly.

There may be a million good reasons to not permit private ownership of nuclear weapons in a society, but such restrictions aren’t consistent with the concept of natural rights(at least not the ones I named).

And, once more, prohibiting the ownership of Weapon Super-Mega-Bad is NOT the same as prohibiting speech that causes harm/damage. Prohibiting the USE of Weapon Super-Mega-Bad is the same as prohibiting harmful speech. Prohibiting ALL SPEECH is the same as prohibiting ownership of Weapon Super-Mega-Bad, in principle.

I’d love to go back in time and prevent humans from gaining knowledge of, and the ability to create, nuclear weapons, but that’s not going to happen.

dbcooper
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?

under our curent definition of mass ‘shooting’ requires firearm
however some countries they have a problem with mass 'killings’where bombs are used

[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]

They are not justifiably superseded by another form of law. This is why laws or restrictions in opposition to natural rights are unjust. We as a society, with government as an instrument, deny free exercise of natural rights after an individual has violated the rights of another.

Does a former felon have the right to self defense? Yes. Do we attempt to suppress the rights of felons? Yes. This is all post due process, opposed to infringing on the rights of people for exercising natural rights.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[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]

Which “natural rights” do you recognize? I refer to life, liberty, and property, when I use the term. If one believes in those natural rights, then only a violation of another’s life, liberty, or property can be justly punished. Ownership of even nuclear weapons does not violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone, so that person can’t be either justly punished for owning the weapon or have the weapon justly taken from him.

And “freedom of speech” is merely a result of the rights to life, liberty, and property. One obviously does not have “freedom of speech” where it violates another’s life, liberty, or property. These sentences may not be worded as well or clearly as I would like them to be.

When we start talking about disallowing ownership of certain weapons, we leave behind the concept of “natural rights” in favor of FDR’s Four Freedoms(freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear-this is where prohibition of certain weapons fits).

If you(anyone) want to restrict others’ rights to life, liberty, and property, then so be it; but don’t do it from behind the concept of natural rights, because that is silly.

There may be a million good reasons to not permit private ownership of nuclear weapons in a society, but such restrictions aren’t consistent with the concept of natural rights(at least not the ones I named).

And, once more, prohibiting the ownership of Weapon Super-Mega-Bad is NOT the same as prohibiting speech that causes harm/damage. Prohibiting the USE of Weapon Super-Mega-Bad is the same as prohibiting harmful speech. Prohibiting ALL SPEECH is the same as prohibiting ownership of Weapon Super-Mega-Bad, in principle.

I’d love to go back in time and prevent humans from gaining knowledge of, and the ability to create, nuclear weapons, but that’s not going to happen.[/quote]

Natural Rights are simply the rights that people have by virtue of their nature. They literally encompass any and all actions one is capable of. That would include the ability to violate the rights of others. In man’s Natural State, I most certainly have the right (meaning I was given the ability) to violate the rights of others.

But man quits that state in order to preserve life, liberty, property. When we join together in societies, we join with like-minded individuals and we NEGATE our prefect freedom/original liberty. We never fully give up the right to all actions; we RESERVE them for use when one enters into a State of War with us. A State of War is simply defined as a condition in which our life, liberty, and property is at risk.

You’re confusing Natural Rights in a pure sense with those that are protected once we form a society. You mention FDR. Laughable. I suggest you read up on John Locke or Cicero before you come on here and try to lecture about Natural Rights, because your concept of them is clearly lacking.

[quote]cavemansam wrote:
dbcooper
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?

under our curent definition of mass ‘shooting’ requires firearm
however some countries they have a problem with mass 'killings’where bombs are used
[/quote]

The question still stands. When was the last time a mass shooting was committed without a gun? If you can show me one instance, I will concede that mass shootings are less likely if EVERYONE is armed rather than if the criminally-minded have an extremely difficult time getting a gun.

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[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]

They are not justifiably superseded by another form of law. This is why laws or restrictions in opposition to natural rights are unjust. We as a society, with government as an instrument, deny free exercise of natural rights after an individual has violated the rights of another.

Does a former felon have the right to self defense? Yes. Do we attempt to suppress the rights of felons? Yes. This is all post due process, opposed to infringing on the rights of people for exercising natural rights.

[/quote]

Short of suicide, you can’t abandon a Natural Right. So by your logic, any infringement upon a Natural Right is an injustice. When a person kills someone and then you attempt to restrict his liberty by imprisoning him, are you committing an injustice? You are certainly violating his right to liberty, a Natural Right that certainly still exists by virtue of him being a living human being.

What has happened is that the murderer has essentially renounced his right to PROTECTION of his Natural Rights. He has done so by virtue of voluntarily living in a society in which there is no recognized PROTECTION of the exercise of ALL his Natural Rights in a pure sense. It’s the essence of the social contract theory. Hobbes would say we renounce or transfer our Natural Right to perfect freedom. Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers would simply say we reserve perfect freedom in the form of self-defense against those who would put themselves into a State of War with us.

i think some of you are playing words games to what end i do not know
laws are a product of MAN
if you look at the time period that the first and second Amendment were written there was this issue about people not wanting to follow the laws of their king so they ran him off wrote their on laws
when ever a man or men subjugate other people through out history first thing they say ‘you will not talk sh-t about me’
then they remove the weapon of the time from the people
when the first and second was written by men who were hopefully, smart understood the importance of these 2 Amendments
as far as weapons go at that time i believe alot of the privately owned guns were better than want the kings men had so there is the possibilty they never thought the governments weapons would be better than the people
here is the but
common sense would show there are some people should not be allowed to own a weapon of any kind
but who decides
people running the government now?
are you f–king kidding me
let the word twisting begin

dbcooper
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?

cavemansam
under our curent definition of mass ‘shooting’ requires firearm
however some countries they have a problem with mass 'killings’where bombs are used

dbcooper
The question still stands. When was the last time a mass shooting was committed without a gun? If you can show me one instance, I will concede that mass shootings are less likely if EVERYONE is armed rather than if the criminally-minded have an extremely difficult time getting a gun.

like i said under our current definition of mass shooting a gun is required
how many mass shootings did not occur because of targets being armed is not known
mass shooters do not tend to report on social media they did not act because targets were armed
during some time periods bows and arrows or cross bows were in wide spread use i think if you look hard i think you can find some examples during indian times in this country or a few during earlier times in other countries
mongols killed a sh-t load of people with bows and arrows

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Natural Rights are simply the rights that people have by virtue of their nature. They literally encompass any and all actions one is capable of. That would include the ability to violate the rights of others. In man’s Natural State, I most certainly have the right (meaning I was given the ability) to violate the rights of others.

But man quits that state in order to preserve life, liberty, property. When we join together in societies, we join with like-minded individuals and we NEGATE our prefect freedom/original liberty. We never fully give up the right to all actions; we RESERVE them for use when one enters into a State of War with us. A State of War is simply defined as a condition in which our life, liberty, and property is at risk.

You’re confusing Natural Rights in a pure sense with those that are protected once we form a society. You mention FDR. Laughable. I suggest you read up on John Locke or Cicero before you come on here and try to lecture about Natural Rights, because your concept of them is clearly lacking.[/quote]

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessionsâ?¦ (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.”-John Locke

"'Tis a Mistake to think this Fault [tyranny] is proper only to Monarchies; other Forms of Government are liable to it, as well as that. For where-ever the Power that is put in any hands for the Government of the People, and the Preservation of their Properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the Arbitrary and Irregular Commands of those that have it: There it presently becomes Tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many.â??-John Locke

I’m not sure where you’re going when you say that my reference to FDR’s “Four Freedoms” is laughable-his four freedoms justify weapons restrictions whereas the concept of natural rights does not.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[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]

They are not justifiably superseded by another form of law. This is why laws or restrictions in opposition to natural rights are unjust. We as a society, with government as an instrument, deny free exercise of natural rights after an individual has violated the rights of another.

Does a former felon have the right to self defense? Yes. Do we attempt to suppress the rights of felons? Yes. This is all post due process, opposed to infringing on the rights of people for exercising natural rights.

[/quote]

Short of suicide, you can’t abandon a Natural Right. So by your logic, any infringement upon a Natural Right is an injustice. When a person kills someone and then you attempt to restrict his liberty by imprisoning him, are you committing an injustice? You are certainly violating his right to liberty, a Natural Right that certainly still exists by virtue of him being a living human being.

What has happened is that the murderer has essentially renounced his right to PROTECTION of his Natural Rights. He has done so by virtue of voluntarily living in a society in which there is no recognized PROTECTION of the exercise of ALL his Natural Rights in a pure sense. It’s the essence of the social contract theory. Hobbes would say we renounce or transfer our Natural Right to perfect freedom. Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers would simply say we reserve perfect freedom in the form of self-defense against those who would put themselves into a State of War with us.

[/quote]

We are actually not that far from saying the same thing. My point to TB was the difference between gun control laws preemptively denying said protection of natural rights. Protection from government not other citizens.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Natural Rights are simply the rights that people have by virtue of their nature. They literally encompass any and all actions one is capable of. That would include the ability to violate the rights of others. In man’s Natural State, I most certainly have the right (meaning I was given the ability) to violate the rights of others.

[/quote]

This, however, is where you falter. Rights are not merely the ability to do something.

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; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new govenment, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.â??

bunch smart guys wrote this