View Single Post
Old 08-29-2019, 09:33 AM
Abatis is offline
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
If people have some natural right to own firearms, . . .
The undeniable "natural right" is the right of self defense. I recognize that some governments assume they possess a power to dictate to people what tools they can use to defend their life.

Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
why don't people in other countries have this right?

You have the right to own a firearm for one reason only - you live in a country where the government gives you that right.
I will reply assuming you are actually interested in "why" and that you haven't been instructed in "why".

Short answer, (which you have already been given), US citizens posses the right to arms because "We the People", when establishing the Constitution (a compact which empowers and establishes government and delegates specific duties for it to perform on our behalf) did not grant the government any power to allow it to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen.

Long answer:

US citizens possess the right to arms because the United States is the only nation founded on the principle of unalienable rights. So while . . .

"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, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

.. . the reality is, not everyone in the world is able to claim the full complement of rights under the governments they subject themselves to, or allow themselves to be subjected under. As stated, a vital part of claiming unalienable rights is society establishing a government of their choosing, an exercise in free will.

So, actionable unalienable rights are not universal. They do not exist for everyone, everywhere under all forms of government. The concept of unalienable rights has a very limited and specific application . . .

The founders / framers of the USA embraced and based their governmental model on the principles of conferred powers and retained rights. The people empower government by surrendering specific powers in a limited, delegated fashion. This established the principle that government cannot legitimately be arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people because government's power is only the sum of that limited amount of power each member of the society gives up to the legislative assembly.

The power vested in the assembly can be no greater than that which the people had before they entered into that society because no person can transfer to another, more power than he possesses himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over any other, to destroy or take away, the life, liberty or property of another person.

Here is the vital point; under these principles, government only keeps that power with the consent of the governed and the citizens retained everything not delegated to the government. Our rights were understood to be inherent and among those inherent rights a subset, called unalienable rights (sometimes inalienable), were considered of such intrinsic value to being human that a person, even willingly, cannot confer or surrender them to another person.

Unalienable rights is a concept focused on legitimacy; a person cannot legitimately confer to government the care or defense of his life, liberty or property. Unalienable also denotes legitimacy of action for government because no legitimate government would ever accept such a surrender by a citizen if offered.

Unalienable really has nothing to do with whether a particular right can be violated by government . . . Of course it can, that's a given. The term again is centered on legitimacy; when an unalienable right is violated, that government is no longer operating according to the principles of its establishment, thus it has lost its legitimacy to govern. It is then subject to the people's original "natural", never surrendered right of self dense, to rescind their consent to be governed and retake the powers originally conferred.

Important to your question, this is the principle of the 2nd Amendment; if this rescinding of their consent to be governed can not be done peacefully, then the people retain the right and the means, to bear arms and use force to oust the usurpers.

Unalienable rights is a concept of importance primarily at the genesis of the social compact / contract. Once the government's powers have been established, (by a ratified by the people constitution, consenting to be governed), unalienable rights become relatively moot because their status has unalterably been codified. The only concern is whether they are being violated and the only enforcers of violations are the people (again, because the care of these rights can not be surrendered or transferred) . . .

In the final analysis, one must understand that "unalienable rights" is a meaningless concept if there isn't a government being established to NOT surrender rights to.

It makes no sense to apply the term or use it in the context of people living under say, a monarchy or a dictatorship or even a parliamentary scheme . . . It is at its core a refutation of a monarchy and any authoritarian rule that is not subject to the citizen's determination and ultimately, their right to rescind their consent to be governed.

Even more nonsensical is a modern enlightened socialist/communist/anarchist discussing the term only to deny the existence of unalienable rights.