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

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by August

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

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]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

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]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

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?