The glaring omission in the liberal crusade for civil liberties: The Second Amendment

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

OK, I know this article is sort of one big strawman, but he hits things right on the head, IMHO.

[onelifecrisis]

Wow, that second amendment does get some scrutiny eh?

I liked the comment I read in an article linked by someone else here:

"The second amendment gives people the right to bear muskets, not uzis."

Which is pretty much the same as a comment I made in yet another thread: if "arms" in 2A means any arms, then all Americans should be able to buy their own nukes. Funnily enough, nobody replied to that one.

[Weiss Pinguin]

I always thought that line meant we could indeed use these:
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/715/arm1lg.gif

[Zachstar]

Not this junk again. The 2nd Amendment is SAFE GOOD whatever... Supreme court will side with the NRA as long as the weapon involved dosent put a hole in you the size of an basketball.

It wouldnt matter if dems had many more in congress. Yer guns are safe.. Can we focus on more important issues? Perhaps the one involving my states economy getting raped?

[mookiemookie]

No, Weiss, you have it all wrong!

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii69/MrR2009/bear-arms.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

I liked it. :rock:

I liked the comment I read in an article linked by someone else here:

"The second amendment gives people the right to bear muskets, not uzis."
Once again someone gets the whole thing backward. The Bill of Rights doesn't "give" anybody anything. It is a guarantee that the government is not allowed to interfere with our natural, or 'God-given' rights. You seem to live in a world where you are only allowed what the good and gracious government gives you. That is exactly what made America different, and what we are constantly in danger of losing. Actually, the Second Amendment does "give" us the right to own Uzis. I would have to pay a whopping good sum for a Federal Firearms License and register it, but I can indeed own one.

Which is pretty much the same as a comment I made in yet another thread: if "arms" in 2A means any arms, then all Americans should be able to buy their own nukes. Funnily enough, nobody replied to that one.
Okay, I will reply to that one. The main difference there is that we are talking about a weapon that could be used to start a war. If I were as wealthy as Bill Gates I might be able to afford both the weapon and the means to deliver it, but the rest of 'the people' would certainly be endangered by its very existence.

You could also argue for the right to build a radio station so powerful that it could override every other station in the community. Is that part of the right to free speech?

[Moeceefus]

liberals...:shifty:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

liberals...:shifty:

???????

[onelifecrisis]

Once again someone gets the whole thing backward. The Bill of Rights doesn't "give" anybody anything. It is a guarantee that the government is not allowed to interfere with our natural, or 'God-given' rights.

God given? No such thing. Name one right of yours that didn't have to be fought for by someone.

You seem to live in a world where you are only allowed what the good and gracious government gives you.

And so do you, like it or not. Though I would replace the word "give" with "grant (sometimes under duress)".

That is exactly what made America different, and what we are constantly in danger of losing.

I agree that we're all constantly in danger of losing our rights, but it seems you're missing a contradiction: if they are 'God given' then how could you lose them?

Okay, I will reply to that one. The main difference there is that we are talking about a weapon that could be used to start a war.

That's a terrible evasion of the point, Steve, and I suspect you know it.

[August]

And so do you, like it or not. Though I would replace the word "give" with "grant (sometimes under duress)"

That's why you are an English Subject and he's an American Citizen.

:salute:

[U-104]

That's why you are an English Subject and he's an American Citizen.

:salute:

:yeah:

[onelifecrisis]

That's why you are an English Subject and he's an American Citizen.

:salute:

I think you mean British Subject, something that has not existed since 1983 (I am a British Citizen) but either way I see no difference; the wording is a technicality, and one that has nothing to do with rights, which have existed in England since 1689 (and which formed the basis of the American Bill of Rights).

[August]

I think you mean British Subject, something that has not existed since 1983 (I am a British Citizen) but either way I see no difference; the wording is a technicality, and one that has nothing to do with rights.


Well you may see it that way but we certainly don't. Your government grants you your rights, our government is prohibited from infringing on the rights we were born with.

[onelifecrisis]

Well you may see it that way but we certainly don't. Your government grants you your rights, our government is prohibited from infringing on the rights we were born with.

You were born with them, but your ancestors were not. They are not 'god given' nor are they 'carved in stone' (as evidenced by the fact that it is illegal for an American Citizen to buy a nuke for 'personal protection').

[August]

You were born with them, but your ancestors were not. They are not 'god given' nor are they 'carved in stone'.

Sure they were Guy. Just because some tyrant usurps those rights does not mean they don't still exist.

[onelifecrisis]

Sure they were Guy. Just because some tyrant usurps those rights does not mean they don't still exist.

If you want to define a right as some sort of personal belief, then why do you even need the constitution? If you decide for yourself whether you can bear arms, speak your mind, and so on, then what do you care whether it is written down in a book or not? What difference does it make? Why even take part in the debate?

[mookiemookie]

If you want to define a right as some sort of personal belief, then why do you even need the constitution? If you decide for yourself whether you can bear arms, speak your mind, and so on, then what do you care whether it is written down in a book or not? What difference does it make? Why even take part in the debate?

I'm not Sailor Steve when it comes to the Constitution, but the way I see it, it's an assertation of these rights, and a consent of the people to be governed according to the system described in the document, so long as that government does not infringe upon our inalienable (or God-given, born-with, every person has them) rights.

It's a contract with ourselves for our form of government. We consent to be governed, in exchange for keeping our inalienable rights.

[onelifecrisis]

I'm not Sailor Steve when it comes to the Constitution, but the way I see it, it's an assertation of these rights, and a consent of the people to be governed according to the system described in the document, so long as that government does not infringe upon our inalienable (or God-given, born-with, every person has them) rights.

It's a contract with ourselves for our form of government. We consent to be governed, in exchange for keeping our inalienable rights.

Thanks to your description mm I think I am finally starting to understand.

Edit:

You know, that's pretty ****ing ingenious actually. I'll have to ring my dad in Ohio and see what he makes of it. The only problem I see is that times change, and your constitution cannot (I am not referring to gun laws here). But that's another topic entirely.

Edit2:

Back to the topic... my previous question "why even debate it" still requires an answer. If the constitution is "inalienable" then there's nothing to debate - any government that tries to change the constitution will by definition cease to be a government, and the general public (the "militia") will presumably forcefully remove them and put a new government in place, right?

Edit3:

No worries, I figured it out. Because prevention is better than cure.

Edit4:

Now I'm confused. I checked Wikipedia and there have been no less than 27 amendments, with the last being as recent as 1992. For something that's "God given" it sure does get changed a lot.

[August]

If you want to define a right as some sort of personal belief, then why do you even need the constitution? If you decide for yourself whether you can bear arms, speak your mind, and so on, then what do you care whether it is written down in a book or not? What difference does it make? Why even take part in the debate?

For the same reason that i'd post my land "No Trespassing" if I didn't want people to be on it. As several people have pointed out already the Bill of Rights are limitations placed on GOVERNMENT powers, they are not restrictions placed on the people.

For example: A private citizen can invite troops to quarter in his house if he wants, but the government cannot tell people they must quarter troops in their houses. See the difference?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Edit4:

Now I'm confused. I checked Wikipedia and there have been no less than 27 amendments, with the last being as recent as 1992. For something that's "God given" it sure does get changed a lot.

The constitution is based upon the liberalist ideas first set forth by John Locke, which hold that man, in his natural state, is free. That means freedom in all things, free to work, to play, to love, to fail, to succeed, etc. That may not seem like a revolutionary development to some, but it was at the time when the only people with God-given rights were in the church or the monarchy.

According to Locke, the rights of man are both neutral and negative (R. Nozicks words, Locke's idea) That means that any man is free to do whatever he wishes, so long as it does not impose consequences upon others without their consent. Of course, there has to be someone around to make sure that when people do affect other people without their consent, they are punished for it. That means a government.

The Constitution strove to provide a government that would serve in such a capacity, but it was known that there would be a need for the document to change as more advances were made and the progress of the human race advanced to where more rights could be excercised. In short, it was felt that the freedom of the individual should expand, and the constitution was supposed to be the tool to make that happen. Thomas Jefferson lamented that it was the "natural progress of things for government to gain, and liberty to yield", and so he and his ilk set about trying to devise a way to reverse that progress.

The answer was the Amendment process. It was reasoned that if the supreme law of the land could only be changed by an overwhelming majority, only good advances would pass, and the minority parties would be protected from abusive majorities. For the most part, that system has worked pretty well. God-given rights have been protected for more people than just white, land-owning males, who at the time were seen as necessary for any kind of self-respecting society. Every Amendment passed has guaranteed more freedom, save the 18th, which itself was intended to "free" man from alcohol (and the devil), and which was promptly repealed.

So you see, it's not so much a statement of God-given rights as it is a system of government by consent intended to maximize the implementation of neutral and negative rights in a society; the God-given rights we have as uninfluenced individuals.

[Sailor Steve]

God given? No such thing. Name one right of yours that didn't have to be fought for by someone.
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...
I didn't say it, they did. Yes, rights must be defended, but that is a given

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787
We indeed do believe that these rights are ours natually, and that others can take them away, but that they will never have the right to.

And so do you, like it or not. Though I would replace the word "give" with "grant (sometimes under duress)".
This is true, but you seem to accept it as the government's prerogative to call the tune. We don't.

I agree that we're all constantly in danger of losing our rights, but it seems you're missing a contradiction: if they are 'God given' then how could you lose them?
Simple. Someone bigger and stronger can keep them from us.

That's a terrible evasion of the point, Steve, and I suspect you know it.
Is it? The problem is that some see Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness as endangered by others' ownership of certain weapons. Their fears are valid, at least in their own eyes, and some reasonable control has to be acceptable. I've already pointed out elsewhere that even in the fabled 'Old West' towns had ordinances preventing the carrying of firearms in town, but not their ownership. Weapons that can destroy countries need to be monitored by countries. I don't claim to know what's best. Your arguments are as good as mine, but America was founded on the concept of individual liberty, and as Jefferson stated that liberty can never be protected if the people are disarmed.

[Tchocky]

Man, it's been Constitution Central round here the last few days.

[Sailor Steve]

Back to the topic... my previous question "why even debate it" still requires an answer. If the constitution is "inalienable" then there's nothing to debate - any government that tries to change the constitution will by definition cease to be a government, and the general public (the "militia") will presumably forcefully remove them and put a new government in place, right?
The Constitution is not 'inalianable'. Man's natural rights are. The American Constitution was written because the Confederation between the States that was created during the Revolution wasn't working. States were squabbling over borders, States were refusing to give aid to each other and refusing to let other States troops pass through their territory to give that aid, and worst of all the Big Three, Britain, France and Russia, all refused to sign separate trade treaties with the different States. The Articles of Confederation gave Congress no power to pass any law that was binding to the states unless it was a unanimous vote by all thirteen representatives, and that never happened.

James Madison saw the need for a stronger central government, but that was something no one wanted. He convinced everybody to put a convention together to "amend" the Articles. As someone at the time said, they "amended them out of existence". The resulting Constitution is the guidebook for how the government is to be run. There was a huge fight to get the individual States to accept it, and most of them demanded a Statement of Rights before they would. Madison didn't want it, because he felt sure that he would inevitably leave some out, and somewhere down the line someone would inevitably say "They didn't mention that one! They must not have meant it!"

But the States, and Madison's friend Thomas Jefferson, insisted, and Madison himself proposed the Bill Of Rights as soon as the new government took shape. The Rights listed are not granted, they are guaranteed. The Declaration Of Independence acknowledges that if the government usurps these rights, it is our further right to abolish that government and create a new one which will secure our rights.

Madison hedged his bets with the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Which basically lays down Madison's belief that any rights not mentioned belong to the people, not the Government.

And the 10th:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Which speaks for itself in saying that the Federal Government is the creation of the States and the People, not the other way around.

They knew their new government might not be perfect, so they added the Amendment process, but they made sure it wasn't easy to do. It requires two-thirds of the congress to pass and amendment, and two-thirds of the states to ratify it, before it can become law. And when they passed the 18th (Prohibition) Amendment the people just ignored it until it was repealed by the 21st. We tend to do that here.

[Moeceefus]

Some insight from the late great George Carlin on rights and privileges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8

[onelifecrisis]

Some insight from the late great George Carlin on rights and privileges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8

Yeah, what he said! Very good stuff.

On a serious note, I can understand the mindset of some of the pro-gun people much better now.

[Sailor Steve]

Some insight from the late great George Carlin on rights and privileges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8
:rotfl2::rock:

I was starting to want to disagree until he got to those last lines. Great stuff! I've been a Carlin fan since I bought his first album back in 1972.

I see rights and government this way: As he said (but I've said it myself many times), I have a right to do anything I want. Anything, as long as it doesn't affect your right to do the same.

We make laws to protect ourselves from each other, not from ourselves. People have no business making laws based on their morals or philosophies, or on what someone might do. We should be free to live our lives any way we see fit, and governments are created to protect that one single right - the right to absolute independence and freedom.

[Platapus]

Some insight from the late great George Carlin on rights and privileges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8


He was one of a kind :salute: