E
exnihilo
Guest
If the weapons were specifically for resisting the state then that actually would guarantee we have no restrictions on weapons used by the state such as full auto guns.
Machine gun fire into Las Vegas crowd at Route 91 music Festival
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The right to act to defend youself is a transcendent moral truth. The right to own any weapon you think you need for self defense does not follow from this. Instead of making up specious arguments, why not quote a moral authority we both agree on who says the right to own a gun is a universal natural law moral right? I will save you the trouble of looking in the Catechism. It isn’t in there.
E
exnihilo
Guest
The Catechism isn’t comprehensive of all moral truths. The lack of an affirmation of a right doesn’t mean it isn’t a right.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If you claim it is a moral right, it isn’t up to me to prove it isn’t. It is up to you to prove it is.
R
rcwitness
Guest
The Constitution of the U.S. is equivalent to the 10 Commandments of God, for the Country.
If we put aside the Constitution, we are no longer the same country.
But as good as the Constitution may be, it’s not going to protect us from evil.
Our society, and therefore our country, is slipping farther away from Jesus based faith. So no amount of freedom, or restriction will help an unfaithful people.
If we put aside the Constitution, we are no longer the same country.
But as good as the Constitution may be, it’s not going to protect us from evil.
Our society, and therefore our country, is slipping farther away from Jesus based faith. So no amount of freedom, or restriction will help an unfaithful people.
R
rcwitness
Guest
It’s a moral right in the sense that Christians are to honor State law, in so much as it doesn’t contradict God’s law.exnihilo:
If you claim it is a moral right, it isn’t up to me to prove it isn’t. It is up to you to prove it is.
E
exnihilo
Guest
I’m not going to attempt to prove that. But since we both agree self defense is a right then the issue could also be approached with asking what is the argument (proof) that the right is limited as to weapons. And a related issue is what is the argument that a weapon would be moral to possess by the state but not an individual. The state is nothing more than a collection of individuals and does not become better or more responsible merely by being such.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The right is not limited as to weapons. That is, if an appropriate weapon is available, you have the moral right to use that weapon. What the moral does not say is anything at all about the right to have that weapon available. More to the point, there is no moral prohibition on civil laws that restrict access to certain weapons.LeafByNiggle:
I’m not going to attempt to prove that. But since we both agree self defense is a right then the issue could also be approached with asking what is the argument (proof) that the right is limited as to weapons. And a related issue is what is the argument that a weapon would be moral to possess by the state but not an individual. The state is nothing more than a collection of individuals and does not become better or more responsible merely by being such.
J
Jig_Saw
Guest
Is someone talking about putting aside the entire Constitution or are they talking about just changing it? Because changing the Constitution is part of the Constitution.
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
It actually can. Gun control advocates simply like to ignore the second part of the amendment, and pretend it is only concerned with the militia.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” is a related but separate statement to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
At the start of the American Revolution the British Government sought to disband the various state militias in order to establish peace and enforce the will of Parliament with the standing army. With this in mind, the general concern after the revolution was that a federal government with the power of a standing army would wish to defund, neuter, and break up any state militias in order to potentially use the standing army to enforce the will of the federal government. They therefore codified that the militia could not be broken up.
The “militia”, being the armed, able bodied, and trained subset of the population, naturally had to be drawn from the population at large. It was therefore necessary for the entire population to be generally armed.
“The people” referes to all members of the community, and in the context of the constitution always refers to an individual right. If the intent was to only allow the militia to keep and bear arms, the amendment would have read “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
Lastly, “bear arms” simply means to have weapons and is not tied to a military function.
Essentially, the amendment identifies the pressing governmental purpose of having a functioning, trained militia as an example to be derived from the inherent right to self defense through weapon ownership. The scope of the “right to bear arms” is not limited by “militia”.
Or, if you wish to hear from the Supreme Court:
“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with the service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self defense within the home”.
And just for Jig:
“We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach”.
D
dvdjs
Guest
You have given not a fair reading but a labored interpretation.
I am happy to accept the various interpretations of the court. Are the Originalists?
I am happy to accept the various interpretations of the court. Are the Originalists?
J
Jig_Saw
Guest
So, by your logic, everyone should be armed so that they can be members of a militia in case they are needed. But the arms that people possess aren’t enough to hold off a third-rate military at this point, so they couldn’t possibly be an effective militia. So your whole argument falls apart.
I guess not. After all, your right to own a gun seems to be vastly outweigh my right to life and property.
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
You implied that a fair reading would not lead to the conclusion that the right to bear arms is an individual right. I demonstrated why it can and should be read that way. If you want to call that a “labored interpretation”, well, good for you. My explanation is the same as the court’s, based on reasoning and historical fact.
D
dvdjs
Guest
We disagree about what is simply a fair reading versus an interpretation. I think that it is clear that the courts interpret the constitution, and that distinction is exacly what I had in mind when I used the phrase fair reading.
I don’t disagree at all with your interpretation at all, nor with the court’s. But the Constitutional fundamentalists cannot have it both ways, and that was the point of my remark in the first place. If penumbras and emanations that give rise to a right to privacy are not simply a fair reading but an interpretation, then so is the right to self-defense
I don’t disagree at all with your interpretation at all, nor with the court’s. But the Constitutional fundamentalists cannot have it both ways, and that was the point of my remark in the first place. If penumbras and emanations that give rise to a right to privacy are not simply a fair reading but an interpretation, then so is the right to self-defense
Last edited:
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
Quit being obtuse. The right to own a weapon is not the same as a duty to own a weapon, and the constitution does not imply or state such. As I said, the ability to own your own weapon and bring it with you when the militia is called up (in 1792-we obviously have standard firearms for that now) is A reason that the right to keep and bear arms should be protected, but it is not THE reason. It is one of many. Secondly, the arms that people possess are plenty good enough to “hold off a third rate military”. The Afghans have been doing a pretty decent job against the world’s foremost military power for nearly 20yrs with second hand rifles and homemade explosives.
Thirdly, again, the right to bear arms is not in opposition to your right to life and property any more than the right to own kitchen knives is.
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
Perhaps. I don’t disagree that someone in good faith can read it to tie “bearing arms” to participating in a militia. I obviously think that is fallacious, but I get it. However, and pardon the anecdote, I have always read it as an individual right before I ever took US History, and I know plenty of others who read it that way too. It doesn’t take digging into history to make a “fair reading” for an individual right.
D
dvdjs
Guest
But the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
E
exnihilo
Guest
I and every other male citizen of my state are in fact militia members by law. Despite the assumption of the state of dominion over all things we still have vestiges of the American notion of a citizen army to defend us. For offense they do need a regular army.
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
I see what you did there… lol
J
Jig_Saw
Guest
I was just following your logic. It’s not my fault that it doesn’t make sense.
Ah, a favorite fallacy of gunowners, the idea that weapon holders in the US could hold their own against a regular national military force. I always find this one hilarious. The Afghans fighting the US aren’t really holding their own, they are hiding behind the skirts of their women and children and couldn’t on the US to not be cruel. And, since the US doesn’t want to make an enemy of every Afghan, they try not to kill the women and the children that the enemy hides behind.
Now we go off topic and claim that kitchen knives are a threat. So we already know that the number of murders committed by knives is about 1/6th that of guns. And I’m not sure what percentage of those knife murders are kitchen knives, but I’m going to take a flyer that it is a small percentage. So, it’s not comparable. Really, you think that your right to arm yourself is greater than my right to property and life because you think all of society should bare the costs of gun ownership. I guess some rights are more equal than others…
- Status