Right to Arms in the 21st Century

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
441

thunderbolt said
But you can lose liberty and property under due process of law without the condition of having violated theblarger or someone else’s rights first, and that has always been the case. Easiest example? Published takings and eminent domain. The government can take your property without you having done anything wrong to anyone

smart guys wrote
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,

as far as what thunderbolt said ,1st and second amemdment gives us the ability to stop it
what the smart guys wrote gives us the right to stop it

442

Since we all agree that the 2nd was written with the ability for citizens to fight an enemy military powerful enough to threaten the very security of the state…Surely that can’t be limited to a revolver, as if we’re cannon fodder? So, what must it include in order to reasonably fight against the soldiers of another power? It’d have to include semi-automatic rifles, at the least.

443

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Since we all agree that the 2nd was written with the ability for citizens to fight an enemy military powerful enough to threaten the very security of the state…Surely that can’t be limited to a revolver, as if we’re cannon fodder? So, what must it include in order to reasonably fight against the soldiers of another power? It’d have to include semi-automatic rifles, at the least. [/quote]

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf

444

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Since we all agree that the 2nd was written with the ability for citizens to fight an enemy military powerful enough to threaten the very security of the state…Surely that can’t be limited to a revolver, as if we’re cannon fodder? So, what must it include in order to reasonably fight against the soldiers of another power? It’d have to include semi-automatic rifles, at the least. [/quote]

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf
[/quote]

Well, I am trying to take baby steps. Since the predominant reason for the people to keep and bear arms wasn’t to stop a single, or maybe even a duo, of violent burglars…

But in fact, was written with a battlefield in mind, we can agree that semi-automatics and ‘high capacity magazines’ are certainly safe from infringement, no? How could they not be? What reasonable interpretation expects the citizen to show up to the battlefield with anything less?

445

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Since we all agree that the 2nd was written with the ability for citizens to fight an enemy military powerful enough to threaten the very security of the state…Surely that can’t be limited to a revolver, as if we’re cannon fodder? So, what must it include in order to reasonably fight against the soldiers of another power? It’d have to include semi-automatic rifles, at the least. [/quote]

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf
[/quote]

Well, I am trying to take baby steps. Since the predominant reason for the people to keep and bear arms wasn’t to stop a single, or maybe even a duo, of violent burglars…

But in fact, was written with a battlefield in mind, we can agree that semi-automatics and ‘high capacity magazines’ are certainly safe from infringement, no? How could they not be? What reasonable interpretation expects the citizen to show up to the battlefield with anything less?[/quote]

I’m with you.

446

Since the language of the Second Amendment is clearly in favor of those that believe that all arms are permitted in the absence of further amending, is there anything that points to the intention of the Second Amendment having been to allow for reasonable restrictions on the types of arms borne by the citizens? If we are to believe that he Constitution and Bill of Rights mean anything, that seems necessary before banning any type of weapon without amendment.

447

[quote]pushharder wrote:
OK, here we go again for ye ol’ thick-headed one:

The 2nd is the only inalienable right and the only right enumerated in the Bill of Rights where the government has reared up on its haunches and insisted on requiring permission IN ADVANCE in order for the citizen to exercise his right.

Joe Citizen does not have to get permission IN ADVANCE to speak, worship, petition the government, keep soldiers from being quartered in his residence, be secure in his person against unreasonable searches and seizures, testify against himself, enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, and avoid excessive bail, fines and cruel and unusual punishments.

Even with your pathetic eminent domain example the citizen whose property is to be seized does not need permission from the government in order to be justly compensated.

I’ve been over this so many times and so many times you bluster and blab and run skeered from addressing this (but I love you anyway and still hope you’ll be the godfather to my dog’s next litter of puppies).

I’m almost to the point of calling you a a clueless forum participant. And that would be dastardly.[/quote]

But this is all a red herring from the point we are discussing. And it’s not even accurate - in some cases, you do have to get advance permission to exercise your right of political speech.

But let’s attack it another way - you listed a bunch of rights in the Bill of Rights. Take a felon, someone convicted of murder who has finished serving his time and is now a free man.

Can you take away his right to political speech?

Can you take away his right to not have soldiers quartered in his home?

Can you take away his right to be protected against unreasonable searches?

You’ve said he can have is right to arms taken away because he has been duly convicted of a crime (even after he has served his time). Can these other rights also be taken away too? Yes or no?

448

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
OK, here we go again for ye ol’ thick-headed one:

The 2nd is the only inalienable right and the only right enumerated in the Bill of Rights where the government has reared up on its haunches and insisted on requiring permission IN ADVANCE in order for the citizen to exercise his right.

Joe Citizen does not have to get permission IN ADVANCE to speak, worship, petition the government, keep soldiers from being quartered in his residence, be secure in his person against unreasonable searches and seizures, testify against himself, enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, and avoid excessive bail, fines and cruel and unusual punishments.

Even with your pathetic eminent domain example the citizen whose property is to be seized does not need permission from the government in order to be justly compensated.

I’ve been over this so many times and so many times you bluster and blab and run skeered from addressing this (but I love you anyway and still hope you’ll be the godfather to my dog’s next litter of puppies).

I’m almost to the point of calling you a a clueless forum participant. And that would be dastardly.[/quote]

But this is all a red herring from the point we are discussing. And it’s not even accurate - in some cases, you do have to get advance permission to exercise your right of political speech.

But let’s attack it another way - you listed a bunch of rights in the Bill of Rights. Take a felon, someone convicted of murder who has finished serving his time and is now a free man.

Can you take away his right to political speech?

Can you take away his right to not have soldiers quartered in his home?

Can you take away his right to be protected against unreasonable searches?

You’ve said he can have is right to arms taken away because he has been duly convicted of a crime (even after he has served his time). Can these other rights also be taken away too? Yes or no?[/quote]

I don’t mean to butt in, but I believe that a convicted murderer can indeed have all of the above rights taken from him; in fact, I’m pretty sure that a convicted murderer will be on probation and subject to recall for the remainder of his life(I could be mistaken, but I’m pretty sure that’s correct).

451

[quote]pushharder wrote:

That’s a valid question even though I find it telling that you have to dwell on the felon angle (confirms my well justified position that you have a weak…position).

I think when a felon’s right to keep and bear is removed it is because it’s part of his/her sentence. HOWEVER, I do not believe every felon should not be able to have their 2nd Amendment rights restored.

Put another way, if you are a violent felon and have done your time you may very well lose your firearm rights because you are still serving your sentence. That may even include a “life sentence.”

If you are not a violent felon and have done your time all your rights should be restored.

But again, this is nonsense to base an argument that all law-abiding citizens should be stripped of their rights, or have them infringed, merely because we can do that to convicted felons.

I mean, sheesh, that is some weak sauce, my friend. That is “green” Tabasco. You don’t use green Tabasco on your Swiss cheese and avocado omelets, do you?
[/quote]

You can’t follow an argument to save your life.

I am not dwelling on this argument - I am trying to decipher the looneytarian assertion about the “natural rights” angle of being able to whatever arm you want and that natural right suprersedes any earthly law to the contrary that be passed (because that is what a natural right is). The natural right exists and inheres by mere virtue of existence - every person is entitled to self-defense and the right to resist tyranny. Ok.

But suddenly the looneytarians start recognizing exceptions, like for felons. If you believe in the unassailable natural right to arms theory because of a God-given right to defense, there is no rational explanation why a person who committed a felony and served his time forfeits the natural right to protect himself and his family from violence from an individual or the tyrannical state.

He committed a crime - so what? He suffered the penalty under law (incarceration). Once he is back on the streets as a free man and a taxpayer, having paid his debt to society, is he not in danger of being attacked by a fellow citizen? Is he any less in danger of being victimized by a tyrannical state than his neighbor who never committed a crime?

He either has this robust natural right, or he doesn’t. If you think he doesn’t have it after having served his time, or more specifically believe that the state can restrict his right because he committed a crime, then you don’t believe this natural right exists like you keep claiming.

What you believe is that a right to own an arm can be restricted in the name of public safety - that is the whole reason you think it is ok to take away a violent felon right’s right to own an arm once he acts violently, and in which case, the benefit of him enjoying his right to own an arm to protect himself is outweighed by the potential threat he poses to society by having an arm.

Cost-benefit analysis, which is fine. But natural rights aren’t subject to cost-benefit balancing acts - that’s why they are identified as rights. Natural rights can’t be trimmed or modified by the state.

So, where we finish is that while you talk in the language of unalloyed natural rights, you really are fine with adjusting rights to own arms when public safety is affected. You are on one one extreme of that spectrum of cost-benefit balancing in the name of public safety in terms of where you’d draw the line on when ownership of arms gets restricted (only after someone has committed a violent felony and they’ve proven themselves to be a danger to society), and that’s fine…

…but the point is, [u]you’re on the cost-benefit spectrum and you’re not actually endorsing the right to arms as a true natural right.[/u].

This should help.

453

“natural rights” survival of the fittest

thuderbolt wrote
He either has this robust natural right, or he doesn’t. If you think he doesn’t have it after having served his time, or more specifically believe that the state can restrict his right because he committed a crime,

my understanding of the Declaration of independence together with the second amendment the ’ state’ does not poses the ability to restrict anyones 2nd amendment right only the ‘people’ have this ability

454

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
OK, here we go again for ye ol’ thick-headed one:

The 2nd is the only inalienable right and the only right enumerated in the Bill of Rights where the government has reared up on its haunches and insisted on requiring permission IN ADVANCE in order for the citizen to exercise his right.

Joe Citizen does not have to get permission IN ADVANCE to speak, worship, petition the government, keep soldiers from being quartered in his residence, be secure in his person against unreasonable searches and seizures, testify against himself, enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, and avoid excessive bail, fines and cruel and unusual punishments.

Even with your pathetic eminent domain example the citizen whose property is to be seized does not need permission from the government in order to be justly compensated.

I’ve been over this so many times and so many times you bluster and blab and run skeered from addressing this (but I love you anyway and still hope you’ll be the godfather to my dog’s next litter of puppies).

I’m almost to the point of calling you a a clueless forum participant. And that would be dastardly.[/quote]

But this is all a red herring from the point we are discussing. And it’s not even accurate - in some cases, you do have to get advance permission to exercise your right of political speech.

But let’s attack it another way - you listed a bunch of rights in the Bill of Rights. Take a felon, someone convicted of murder who has finished serving his time and is now a free man.

Can you take away his right to political speech?

Can you take away his right to not have soldiers quartered in his home?

Can you take away his right to be protected against unreasonable searches?

You’ve said he can have is right to arms taken away because he has been duly convicted of a crime (even after he has served his time). Can these other rights also be taken away too? Yes or no?[/quote]

I don’t mean to butt in, but I believe that a convicted murderer can indeed have all of the above rights taken from him; in fact, I’m pretty sure that a convicted murderer will be on probation and subject to recall for the remainder of his life(I could be mistaken, but I’m pretty sure that’s correct).[/quote]

Yep. Just saw this after I submitted my last post.

What I can’t figure out is how a smart guy like ThunderInfringe wants to keep running this play. He loses yardage every time.
[/quote]

This attempt at trash talk from the guy who showed up to the gridiron with a bat and ball glove?

455

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

That’s a valid question even though I find it telling that you have to dwell on the felon angle (confirms my well justified position that you have a weak…position).

I think when a felon’s right to keep and bear is removed it is because it’s part of his/her sentence. HOWEVER, I do not believe every felon should not be able to have their 2nd Amendment rights restored.

Put another way, if you are a violent felon and have done your time you may very well lose your firearm rights because you are still serving your sentence. That may even include a “life sentence.”

If you are not a violent felon and have done your time all your rights should be restored.

But again, this is nonsense to base an argument that all law-abiding citizens should be stripped of their rights, or have them infringed, merely because we can do that to convicted felons.

I mean, sheesh, that is some weak sauce, my friend. That is “green” Tabasco. You don’t use green Tabasco on your Swiss cheese and avocado omelets, do you?
[/quote]

You can’t follow an argument to save your life.

I am not dwelling on this argument - I am trying to decipher the looneytarian assertion about the “natural rights” angle of being able to whatever arm you want and that natural right suprersedes any earthly law to the contrary that be passed (because that is what a natural right is). The natural right exists and inheres by mere virtue of existence - every person is entitled to self-defense and the right to resist tyranny. Ok.

But suddenly the looneytarians start recognizing exceptions, like for felons. If you believe in the unassailable natural right to arms theory because of a God-given right to defense, there is no rational explanation why a person who committed a felony and served his time forfeits the natural right to protect himself and his family from violence from an individual or the tyrannical state.

He committed a crime - so what? He suffered the penalty under law (incarceration). Once he is back on the streets as a free man and a taxpayer, having paid his debt to society, is he not in danger of being attacked by a fellow citizen? Is he any less in danger of being victimized by a tyrannical state than his neighbor who never committed a crime?

He either has this robust natural right, or he doesn’t. If you think he doesn’t have it after having served his time, or more specifically believe that the state can restrict his right because he committed a crime, then you don’t believe this natural right exists like you keep claiming.

What you believe is that a right to own an arm can be restricted in the name of public safety - that is the whole reason you think it is ok to take away a violent felon right’s right to own an arm once he acts violently, and in which case, the benefit of him enjoying his right to own an arm to protect himself is outweighed by the potential threat he poses to society by having an arm.

Cost-benefit analysis, which is fine. But natural rights aren’t subject to cost-benefit balancing acts - that’s why they are identified as rights. Natural rights can’t be trimmed or modified by the state.

So, where we finish is that while you talk in the language of unalloyed natural rights, you really are fine with adjusting rights to own arms when public safety is affected. You are on one one extreme of that spectrum of cost-benefit balancing in the name of public safety in terms of where you’d draw the line on when ownership of arms gets restricted (only after someone has committed a violent felony and they’ve proven themselves to be a danger to society), and that’s fine…

…but the point is, [u]you’re on the cost-benefit spectrum and you’re not actually endorsing the right to arms as a true natural right.[/u].

This should help.

[/quote]

Sorry, but I said it more than once: a felon should have his rights restored after completing his sentence – all of his rights. All. Every one of them.

Who is it you are arguing with exactly?
[/quote]

Then can’t every sentence just be increased to a life sentence? You serve the first part in jail, then parole, then a less restricted sentence but still some rights removed like guns.

457

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Since we all agree that the 2nd was written with the ability for citizens to fight an enemy military powerful enough to threaten the very security of the state…Surely that can’t be limited to a revolver, as if we’re cannon fodder? So, what must it include in order to reasonably fight against the soldiers of another power? It’d have to include semi-automatic rifles, at the least. [/quote]

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf
[/quote]

Well, I am trying to take baby steps. Since the predominant reason for the people to keep and bear arms wasn’t to stop a single, or maybe even a duo, of violent burglars…

But in fact, was written with a battlefield in mind, we can agree that semi-automatics and ‘high capacity magazines’ are certainly safe from infringement, no? How could they not be? What reasonable interpretation expects the citizen to show up to the battlefield with anything less?[/quote]

Well?

If the citizen is to be on the battlefield (intent) reason demands that he at least have the very same rifles and magazines being debated today. The same in nature as the enemy opposite him on the battlefield would be carrying. In what possible way, without blatantly wiping ones rear with the constitutional process for the sake of achieving a desired policy goal, could one deny that the federal government and judiciary must keep their mitts off such weapons? Again, what with the second framing the right around doing exactly as I’ve described–Opposing enemy SOLDIERS on the battlefield.

Whatever one feels about the reading of the 2nd regarding nukes/bio chem, etc, how can there be any doubt that the weapons and magazines which are currently making the news are untouchable? How?

460

A convicted murderer has forfeited every right. The fact that he is allowed to continue living at all is due to the court’s mercy. If he is permitted to live outside of prison, he still does not regain any rights. He chooses to live outside the walls of a prison. He is a slave. If he must be permitted to exercise his natural rights upon his release from prison, there is no possibility that he can even be imprisoned in the first place-that would certainly be a violation of his natural rights.

Of course, the idea that a man can’t be punished for anything he does makes that man a ruler. If someone can’t be punished for anything, then he is free to do anything that he wishes to others. If a man’s right to swing his fist does not end where his fellow man’s nose begins, that man is the State.