View Single Post
  #79  
Old 09-12-2019, 01:13 AM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,273
The bill of rights is not an exhaustive list of the human rights that Americans possess. In fact, the bill of rights says so itself in the 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I believe self defense to be an obvious and inherent human right. Further, I believe that such a right implies access to weapons which are appropriate for personal defense, like those that police officers carry, for example, for self defense.

Additionally, lack of access to weapons that can be wielded without significant physical strength or fighting ability is discriminatory. Sure, as a reasonably young, able bodied man, I've at least got a fighting chance with my fists or a baseball bat. But am I going to tell a woman half my size that she should be able to fight off any attackers with her bear hands?

I also believe, sincerely, that it's obvious that the second amendment specifically protects an individual right to own and bear arms. In fact, I think this is so obvious that arguments to the contrary are necessarily in bad faith. Trying to twist the idea that the second amendment is a power granted to the states is utterly wrong and utterly contrary to the way that rights, powers, "the people", states, and related language is used in other parts of the constitution. The idea that the national guard, created over 100 years later, and ultimately under the ultimate command of the federal armed forces, fulfills this role, is ludicrous.

Now - you can sincerely believe that the second amendment means what it says, but it's outdated - but then we have a constitutional process to handle such a thing, amendments. Deciding that a basic human right, and one specifically enshrined in the constitution, just isn't relevant anymore and we can freely violate it is certainly against the spirit of the constitution, the letter of the constitution, and in general sets a dangerous precedent.

So I believe that the second amendment clearly and unambiguously protects the right to own and bear arms, but I also believe that, absent the second amendment, such a right, as part of the right of self defense, exists anyway. It's nice that both end up arriving in the same place - it makes things much less legally ambiguous.

I would say that the OP is not only wrong, but the opposite of right - I've also participated in countless gun debates, and those who argue against the right to bear arms are usually arguing in bad faith. They attempt to distort the obvious truth of the intent of the founding fathers and what's actually written in the constitution because they believe that guns are bad or that that part of the constitution is unsuitable or outdated in a modern society, but they knowingly distort the truth and argue in bad faith to try to justify that the constitution never meant that at all.

I'm not saying that those who argue for gun control generally argue in bad faith - I'm saying that specifically on the issue of whether or not the second amendment means what it obviously means they do.