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

[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.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

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]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

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.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Moeceefus

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

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]

Originally Posted by Moeceefus

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

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]

Originally Posted by Moeceefus

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

He was one of a kind