Formally enrolled members of militia were under Militia Act of 1792 impressment and obligated to “provide himself with a good musket or firelock”, I would say that “good” is a qualifier that denotes a gun “in good working order”.
While charges or fines were not set-out in federal law, many states had penalties and fines for failing to keep up with the requirements as to arms and accouterments; when called, one had to muster in a condition to fight.
Of course this has NOTHING to do with “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” ;).
Again, I’m not the one who connected the two.
Not that it matters a whit what the 2nd Amendment says and/or means if carrying weaponry is some sort of “Natural Right”, correct?
The entire realm of political systems and their operation is one of philosophy, of theory residing in the mind.
Physical, tangible representations of the philosophy can be generated (e.g., the Constitution) but even that, a contract outlining the philosophy, is dependent upon humans considering the philosophy is something to cherish, respect and obey, itself a construction of the mind
Physical, tangible “things” that facilitate the exercise of a right are important and protected as ancillary / contributory / complementary to the right, like the printing press, religious texts and items and yes, guns and ammunition.
Don’t be sad. What you said has no resemblance to what I believe. More pointedly, it has no resemblance to anything I’ve said.
I’ve said that the people should choose what rights they want. I don’t see how you can stretch that to claim I think an absolutist or a conqueror should be deciding what rights people have.
Philosophical politics that only exist in theory are pointless. The only politics that matter are those that exist in the real world and affect real people.
I can see, as a hypothetical, an interpretation of the text and meaning of the Second Amendment which would say that the right to keep and bear arms is contingent on membership in a militia. At which point, we could debate the meanings of well-regulated and militia.
But puddleglum seems to be saying that such an interpretation isn’t just hypothetical. He said “The opening clause of the 2nd amendment is not ignored.” And I disagree.
My understanding of our current gun laws is that they are based on the theory that the right to own firearms is a right held by individuals, not a right held by members of a group, even if it’s a group of which everyone is automatically a member.
Unfortunately, at the moment we’re all forced to apply a textualist approach to puddleglum’s post. It would be helpful if he would respond and explain what he meant so we could take an originalist approach.
I resist calling any right a “natural right” once we are talking about humans in society (and living under a government). The term “natural right” assumes one is in a “state of nature” as opposed to in society.
Certainly what are deemed to be “natural rights” survive the move to society but at that point I’d rather call those rights “original” or “inherent”; basically, those rights that humans possess in *or out *of society . . . Now, whether the society (government) that particular humans find themselves living under actually respect inherent rights is the larger discussion we are having.
It’s just that I would rather keep the terms segregated in the states of human condition that they remain logically coherent and contained within the philosophy that birthed the term . . .
Natural rights = State of Nature.
As to, "Not that it matters a whit what the 2nd Amendment says and/or means if carrying weaponry is an [original, inherent right], correct? . . .
That is correct. The right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing right, not in any manner dependent on what the 2nd Amendment says. SCOTUS has been boringly consistent on that point for over 140 years.
Recent lower court decisions (Young v Hawaii) have said that the right to bear arms is the right to carry a gun in public for self defense and States can not impair this right. Deciding the manner of carry is in the power of the States but the basic right must be respected and protected (the panel decision is set aside for now, awaiting an en banc review, so we will see if this holding becomes the law in the 9th).
And nowhere in your post do I see you define the word “alienated”. . .
I’ve replied to you assuming you were interested in a reasoned discussion; if we can not establish we are defining and using words in a consistent manner how can that happen?
I only have the words he types to ascertain his beliefs.
Perhaps you should review the exchange between him and I.
To my very focused on the USA post he writes; "If people have some natural right to own firearms, why don’t people in other countries have this right?". That he’s bringing in “other countries” and how the existence of governments that don’t respect the right somehow impugns the existence of unalienable rights, meant to me he is denying the legitimacy of the US “conferred powers / retained rights” system . . .
He doubles down with, “You have the right to own a firearm for one reason only - you live in a country where the government gives you that right.” From that I did begin assuming that he believes the system in “other countries”, where rights flow from, are given by the government, is a preferred one.
I reply with a post that I took the time to make as comprehensive as I could, a post that would lay-out with specifics, what “unalienable rights” are and from where they emanate.
It is all ignored and he replies with “My point is that it’s obviously wrong to speak of unalienable rights while observing these rights don’t exist in other countries. That’s proof that these rights are, in fact, quite alienable.”
So, I’m thinking to myself, do I assume he is just sloppy with the “alienable” terminology or is he “obviously wrong” in his definition or is it as simple as he just holds a deep contempt for the “unalienable rights” concept?
Why claim I’m “obviously wrong” when no explanation or support for that emphatic statement is provided; who’s he trying to convince, himself?
My first intuition was to just ignore him from his first post to me, I was “obviously wrong” in thinking replying to him might be a worthwhile expenditure of time.
.
This statement is absurd. And the Founding Fathers (who passed Alien and Sedition Acts) would tell you so.
You seem to be of the mindset that the Declaration of Independence has the force of law. Well, good luck with asserting in American jurisprudence that you retain some sort of right to take up arms and abolish the government. You will lose every single time.
If the Second Amendment is about self-defense, and self-defense is an inalienable right that the US is based on, then why is the US the only country in the world where the people are not allowed effective tools of self-defense?
Well, as an initial matter, it’s important to remember that the founders only viewed the constitution as applying to the federal government. It is entirely up to a state, in their mind, to decide for itself such issues as the right to bear arms within its borders (although I’m certain that most states at that time, if not all, did in fact assure their citizens of the right to bear arms). The 2nd amendment, as originally conceived, wouldn’t have prevented a state from outlawing individual gun ownership (amendments were not “incorporated” to the states until courts said so, much later, and even then they did so selectively with specific amendments).
Moreover, the 2nd amendment was an assurance to the States that they could maintain their own militias, so that they wouldn’t be a) subject to an invading federal army, or b) unable to suppress their own uprisings because the federal government failed to defend them. It doesn’t pertain to individuals.
Scalia invented the individual right stuff. He was an activist judge on things he wanted.
Then no government in history, no matter how corrupt, capricious, or evil, has ever violated a single human right. It’s quite literally impossible.
When Uday Hussein saw a woman out in public, and had his bodyguards kidnap her so that he could rape her, nobody involved ever violated any woman’s rights. You see, the Iraqi government had never established those rights in the first place. And obviously, you can’t break something that doesn’t exist.
Except that what I wrote there is set-out clearly in the writings of the founders / framers . . . So there’s that.
The DoI is referred to and cited as the foundational principles of the nation and the concept of unalienable rights is the guiding principle as to the recognition of rights and their nature.
I would never expect such a ruling. As I said, none of these rights (including the right to rescind our consent to be governed) emanate from the compact by which the people grant government its powers. Since that is true, it is absurd to want or expect a structure created by the Constitution (the federal courts) and deriving its limited powers from the Constitution, to find and delineate a right that does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.
To be even more emphatic, I don’t need any agent of the government to tell me what my rights are. My unalienable rights predate the Constitution and the governmental authority created by it.
By the Constitution’s structure, no governmental agency has any legitimate import on the extent of my rights, only of laws. This also extends to the courts including SCOTUS. As a creation of the Constitution their duty is NOT to determine if a right exists, or its scope, or whether it is socially or culturally popular, or whether the perceived social impact outweighs holding the government to the constraints inherent in enumerated powers. The Court’s only duty is to decide whether a challenged law was enacted beyond the strictly limited, clearly defined powers delegated to the legislature.
And while I’m ranting, I find especially repugnant any government servant pontificating on the extent of my rights; their purview is only the creation and execution of law at the citizen’s behest and for our benefit, not the citizen’s rights. Their only legitimate concern regarding my rights is to not exceed the legislative, executive or judicial powers granted to them by the Constitution . . . if the bastards could only stick to that our rights would be safe without regard of their listing (or not) in the Bill of Rights.
Do you think that constitutes a refutation or even a rebuttal to what I said?
It doesn’t, and in trying to be sarcastic you make my point about the degraded condition of liberty, that citizens would allow someone with gold fringe to dictate to them as to their rights. Who awards the gold fringe in your world, that would allow them to speak on the subject of unalienable rights?
That those rights are considered “unalienable” precludes such a condition doesn’t it?
I guess now we are in the paradoxical situation that a citizen claiming their rights and demanding government constrain itself to just the powers granted to it, can be condemned for hypocrisy, for assuming a power to define rights . . .