Right to Arms in the 21st Century

That’s not at all what’s happening here, push. You should know better than that, Tonto.

A general statement was made. In order to test the validity of a general statement, one simply goes to the most extreme particular. If the extreme particular statement does not hold true, then certainly a universal statement cannot hold true. One cannot say that all mammals give live births if even one exception can be found. The statement changes from “all mammals…” to “some mammals…”. Although in pure logic terms “some” simply means “at least one” and does not necessarily imply that “some are not” since at least one can also include the entirety (All…are…)

But in this case, if we can establish that “some…are…” because we have determined that it cannot be that “all…are…”, we certainly can also establish logically that “some…are not…”.

Which necessarily forces us to examine something else: if some are and some are not, what is it that distinguishes the two? What makes them different?

So I think TB is getting at a pretty simple point, quite frankly. If the natural right to bear arms can somehow be violated, in this case by limiting felons, what is the standard for doing so? Why is it that some people are people with the protection of natural rights while some people are not people with the protection of natural rights?

You don’t understand what natural rights are. Life, liberty, and property/estate/pursuit of happiness are AMONG our unalienable rights. They are not the entirety of them.

Our natural rights are literally all of the things we have within our physical capabilities. I’ve already made this point once, but I’ll make it again.

A right is simply something that someone has or is given that they are entitled to. A right is simply nothing more than an entitlement. An entitlement is simply something someone has or is given legitimately. Our rights are self-evident, and self-evident doesn’t mean obvious. It means something more along the lines of tautological.

Regardless, natural rights define all humans. You cannot take away one of these rights, since to do so would be like taking away 60 internal degrees from a triangle and still expecting to have a triangle. No matter how many different triangles you look at, they all have the same basic nature to them; they all have 180 degrees of internal angles, they all have three and only three sides, etc.

Humans can lose the PROTECTION of their natural rights, but they cannot lose these rights themselves and still be “human”.

So when you commit first-degree murder, you don’t lose any natural rights. You lose the protection of them. You don’t lose any right to liberty, speech, religion, whatever; you lose the protection of them.

Civil societies are essentially formed when like-minded people come together to live in a situation where they RESERVE the exercise of certain rights in exchange for the protection of others. We essentially set aside the right to bash each others’ brains in because we would rather that people not be able to exercise this right against us. But even then, we retain our original liberty at all times regardless. To state that we give these things up is essentially to embrace Hobbesian teachings. This is classic Lockean doctrine and it’s practically inexcusable for you to not grasp this distinction between losing and losing protection.

The 1st and 2nd Amendment does not give us anything other than the protection of that which we already had. It doesn’t give us the ABILITY to do a single fucking thing. It’s this old-world notion of liberty that needs to be eradicated. The Bill of Rights does not give anyone ANY RIGHTS WHATSOEVER.

It simply protects those which we have by nature of being a human being. Yes, the rights enumerated in 1-8 are more detailed than “life, liberty, property”, but that is only because the common law tradition had established through precedent/tradition/etc. that those enumerated in the Bill of Rights were fundamental aspects of mankind’s natural liberties.

Actually, as a Scalia fan I’m surprised you’re resorting to such a tired rationale.

Original intent? How about original intent? The fucking words in the Constitution state clearly “…to bear arms…” The clear-as-fucking-day intent, as evidenced by the meaning of the actual words used in the 2nd Amendment, make it beyond obvious that the original intent was to protect the right to bear weapons that can be carried in someone’s arms. An Abrams tank isn’t a “firearm”, nor is a 12" cannon.

So there is already a clear limitation on the PROTECTION of your natural right to self-defense. The natural right to self-defense necessarily includes the ability to use firearms to defend oneself. But there are other, more effective weapons for self-defense.

And now I’m starting to get repetitive here. I already made this point before, namely that the Bill of Rights themselves offer protection of rights, and obviously not unequivocal protection of ALL rights. You basically already acknowledge such a limitation, but you haven’t explained what your standard is for limiting the protection of such rights.

Equivalent comparison? Clearly, you aren’t remotely familiar with the concept of logical equivalence.

Two things I’d say in response;

  1. “Bear” isn’t limited to “carry.” It can be used to refer to the act of carrying, but it can also be used to mean “bring forth” (Websters). To produce.

  2. A tank may not be a firearm, but then the 2nd doesn’t say “firearms,” but “arms.” Now they could have easily just said firearms, but they didn’t. If you didn’t want or intend for Joe citizen to have artillery or some such thing, why not simply say “firearms?” Or, rifles. Whatever.

I don’t know the laws surrounding this, but I’m pretty sure there are still privately owned cannon in the US. And the only thing stopping me from erecting a trebuchet is personal initiative, carpentry know-how and probably some local building ordinances.

Keep in mind I’m not talking about building an assault trebuchet. Nobody should be able to own those things. Scary stuff.