Just listen to yourselves...

Great Debates
1

Do you think it would be O.K. to force religions to register with the government for “approval”? Do you think it would be O.K. to mandate a waiting period before being allowed to peacefully assemble? How about a background check before the government allows you to publish a book? Or how about a law that only allows you to write one newspaper column a month?

Of course not. “Those are rights,” you say.

And the right to protect yourself is not?

The right to keep and bear arms is exactly that: a right. It is not a privilege “granted” by the state. It is an inalienable right - you’re born with it. And it is a protected right of the people, not the government, according to our Constitution. And the Supreme Court, for that matter.

I will never “register” because I do not believe in registering my rights; it is a total insult to my sensibilities.

2

Religions do not need to be approved for people to believe. However, if they want tax exempt status or any number of other “benefits” of being a religion, they need to make the appropriate filings with the government.

If you want to get together to amble down mainstreet with your friends, you had better be prepared to request a parade permit rather well in advance of your big day.

As to guns being part of some inalienable right with which you are born, I suspect you need a bit more tutoring in the philosophy and execution of government.

I am not a gun-ban supporter, but you are not making a very good case for those who would wish to protect the right to arm bears.

3

IMHO, personal opinion, debates on gun ownership are generally fruitless, so I won’t debate your main point.

However, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines inalienable as “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>”. That phrase bothers me. Is gun ownership an inalienable right according to that defintion? No, the right to own guns physically can be surrendered (and is in some parts of the world). Same for the right to practise religion without registering, assemble peacably, publish, live, be free, and pursue happiness. Whether or not people should have any of these rights is another question.

Matter of fact, I can’t think of any right that physically cannot be surrendered. It seems to me that “inalienable rights” is a grandiose phrase that rolls off the tongue, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

4

JonF, I cannot transfer my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, et al. You can say, that, well, I could kill you, but the right itself still exists.

I can surrender myself to a shooting squad, but that right is mine. You can kill me unjustly, or even justly for that matter, but my right to live is still there.

Follow?

Just pointing out a few points, but yours still stands.

Connor

5

> JonF: I can’t think of any right that physically cannot be surrendered. It seems to me that “inalienable rights” is a grandiose phrase that rolls off the tongue, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I see. So are you saying our Declaration of Independence is poorly-worded document?

> Tomndebb: Religions do not need to be approved for people to believe. However, if they want tax exempt status or any number of other “benefits” of being a religion, they need to make the appropriate filings with the government.

True, but that is not the same as registering a religion.

> Tomndebb: If you want to get together to amble down mainstreet with your friends, you had better be prepared to request a parade permit rather well in advance of your big day.

If a permit is required to assemble (which I think is un-Constitutional, but that’s another story), they normal MUST issue the permit no matter what.

> Tomndebb: As to guns being part of some inalienable right with which you are born, I suspect you need a bit more tutoring in the philosophy and execution of government.

Really? So our Founding Fathers were wrong??

Well let me give you a little lesson on the “philosophy and execution of government”:

Our founding fathers adopted the John Locke philosophy that we are “Endowed by our Creator with certain Inalienable Rights”. Remember this from the Declaration of Independence intro? What this means is that you are BORN with certain fundamental rights. Since you are BORN with these rights, no one could “give” them to you. How could they? I mean, you were born with them!! BUT, our Founding Fathers knew that even though no one could GIVE you these rights (like I said, you were BORN with them), someone COULD take them away. So what they did was this: they simply enumerated some of these rights as the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution (freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, etc.). They then said that the Government or anyone else COULD NOT TAKE THESE RIGHTS AWAY FROM YOU. It is very important to remember that it does not say “HERE. WE GRANT YOU THESE RIGHTS.” It says, “YOU WERE BORN WITH CERTAIN RIGHTS, AND WE PROMISE NOT TO TAKE THEM AWAY.” Do you understand the distinction? The Bill of Rights grants no rights! It simply promises not to take your Natural (i.e. “born with”) Rights away. This was the predominate political philosophy our Founding Fathers believed in. Supposedly, we still believe it. It should also be noted that we have natural rights not listed in the Bill of Rights, such as the right to protect yourself.

So that’s it: Natural rights are rights every human being is born with, and they revolve around the belief that Man is entitled to “Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” To many people, on the other hand, disagree with our Founding Fathers and believe that RIGHTS COME FROM GOVERNMENT. If you want to believe that, fine. But just remember, what the government gives, it can later take away.

I believe no government can give me rights. Why? Because it’s illogical. We, the people of these United States, are collectively and individually SUPERIOR to the government, correct? It doesn’t make sense, then, that something INFERIOR to me can give me rights. Only something superior to me, such as Our Creator, has the authority to give me rights. Now since we’re superior to the government, WE have the authority to grant (and take away) ITS rights, i.e. I don’t need the government’s permission, but it sure needs mine (ours).

I look at the government as a servant, and there’s no way in hell a servant can grant me rights. Many people, on the other hand, look to the government as a God-like entity that has the power and authority to give and take away rights. Those people are quickly leading us down the path of slavery.

In conclusion, here’s some choice quotes I dug up on Natural Rights:
“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 …” - Declaration of Independence

“The idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural rights.” - Thomas Jefferson

“The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of
God.” - John F. Kennedy

“It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all.” - Thomas Jefferson

“A right that pre-exists government sets us free, (speech, self defense, assembly, possession of property and the freedom to work hard and keep the fruits of our labors according to our efforts). But a right created by government enslaves us. Enslaves us when we are forced to pay for it, and again when we are forced to behave in certain ways, in order to gain access to what is lawfully ours to begin with.” - Jim Quinn

“Natural rights are rights every human being is born with. These rights pre-date government.”

“The Bill of Rights is the list of the fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by his Creator, that define what it means to be a free and independent people, the rights which must exist to ensure that government governs only with the consent of the people.” - Jeffrey R. Snyder

“The Government cannot create rights. (God has already done that.) It can only take them away.”

Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man. - Thomas Jefferson

“Free men have a right and moral duty to oppose the unlawful taking of our natural rights by any means available to us. As radical and revolutionary as this may sound today, it has been said many times before. It is as true today as it was in Ancient Rome, Sparta, or in Eighteenth Century Virginia.” - Gary A. Shade

“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” - Thomas Jefferson

“The whole of the Bill of Rights is a declaration of the right of the people at large or
considered as individuals… It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and
which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” - Albert Gallatin, the New York Historical Society, October 7th, 1789.

And predictably:

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary
Americans…” – President William Jefferson Clinton, USA TODAY 11 Mar 93

6

Crafter_Man, I see your point. I don’t see how a government could enforce regulations against religion successfully. (Most people I know would continue practicing their faith in God even if it meant prison, fines, executions, etc.)

As to your subject of guns:

We do need some restrictions on the use of guns. Just like we need some restrictions on religion. For example: I shouldn’t be able to put a gun to someone’s head and force them to convert to my Baptist Church. Their right to religion should exceed my right to own/use a gun at that point.

I also support an age limit to own a handgun just like I support an age limit to view pornographic material. We have rights but we must also have restrictions on those rights. If there were no restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms then it wouldn’t be punishable for me to kill you, so long as it was done with a firearm. And that definitely wouldn’t help the image of my church!:wink:

God bless,
jenkinsfan

7

No, I don’t follow. Are you saying that you have these rights, but their existence has no effect? What does a “right to live” do for you if it does not in any way protect your life?

Not at all. It’s extremely well-worded and inspiring … and, to a large extent, meaningless. It is part of our heritage but, IIRC, not part of our law.

8

Interesting. I’ve read the Bible and I don’t remember any mention from God about the right to bear arms… In fact, I don’t remember God ever mentioning “rights” at all… Is there an 11th commandment that I missed in Sunday School? “Thou shall not deny thy neighbor the right to bear arms”?

Clearly we should be giving babies guns the second they exit the womb.

Not just poorly worded, but not entirely well thought through. Were it not so, we would not need amendments. In fact, the point you are trying so feebly to defend is the second amendment - not even a part of the original constitution, per se.

But let’s look at the second amendment, to which you indirectly refer:

Taken in context, it certainly sounds like the intent of this amendment was to insure that citizens had the right to bear arms in the interest of the security of a free state - not necessarily to blow away suspicious looking characters lurking in and around your property…

9

I didn’t want to get involved in this…but…

And I don’t think the John Locke philosophy had anything to do with religion. Ok, this my personal belief, but it seems to me that “Our Creator” is a generic term, non-denominational, for “Hey, someTHING greater then us gave us these rights.”
I don’t think it had anything to do with the Bible, especially since a lot of the Founding Fathers were into the whole “Enlightenment” way of thinking.

[sarcasm] Yes clearly. [/sarcasm]
Everybody has basic rights, as previously stated, but you don’t have to EXERCISE those rights. Everybody who does not have a gun chooses not to exercise the right to own a gun. Everybody who does not claim a religion for themselves chooses to not exercise their right to religion.

[quote]
So are you saying our Declaration of Independence is poorly-worded document?

       Not just poorly worded, but not entirely well thought through. Were it not so, we would not need amendments. In fact,
       the point you are trying so feebly to defend is the second amendment - not even a part of the original constitution, per
       se.

[quote]

Seeing as how the Declaration of Independence was basically a “Fuck You England, we don’t need your shit” statement, it never acted as a legal document. The Declaration of Independence is a set of ideals, not of laws. THerefore, the amendments have nothing to do with the DofI. I fail to see WHAT exactly the DofI has to do with the Constitution and the amendments.

Maybe guns should be regulated, to a certain extent. Howerver, many people who own guns do not plan on blowing away suspicious looking characters lurking around property. Maybe they plan on defending their family from armed intruders, rapists, etc etc. We do not live in a fairy tale land with magic and fairies, these people do exhist, and people have the right to defend themselves. THat is a basic right, to defend oneself. And if guns do the trick, than great. I know guns work a hell of a lot better than teeth, and many people don’t have the physical strength to fight off intruders or attackers with fists.
Weapons have always been used in defense, from the earliest stones and sticks, to knives, to guns. People are always gonna find ways for defense.

10

I’ve got a question that I’ve never had sufficiently answered - it’s more of a rhetorical question than a question per se, but here goes - Why do people (American people, obviously) have the unshakeable faith that the Constitution is so perfect? Am I going to be burned at the stake for saying that it’s a load of old cobblers? I’m sure it was damnedly impressive back in the time it was created, but why must it hold true for all time? Why do people have an inalienable right to own things solely designed for hurting people? Didn’t (uninformed statement alert!!!) the creators of the document own slaves? Weren’t they humans? Humans make mistakes, damn it!! Furthermore, this may seem like an absolutely cretinous question, but why do gun advocates want guns? Is the only reason to repel theoretical intruders? Oh, and JoeyBlades, the commandment you’ve missed runs “Thou shalt pop caps in the asses of thine enemies”. Due to a modern misinterpretation of the word ‘asses’, donkeys do not get shot nearly as often as they should.

11

It’s still damnedly impressive. Do you realize that you are using this MB on a regular basis, debating, and in some cases, complaining, about the Constitution and the government due to the Constitution? Do you realize that you have the right to get on here and bitch about what’s wrong with democracy without fear of being imprisoned due to that “unshakeable faith” in the Constitution?
You have the right to go to any Church you want to right now, knowing that the Government will not FORCE you to go to a specific church at any specific time.
You have the right to vote, even if you are a minority, or a woman, you have the right to Vote this November, and decide who your leader is going to be. You have the right to vote and contribute to major decisions and laws in this nation. That even includes voting on pro-ban legislation.
Is this country perfect? No. Is the government free of Corruption? Good God no. But every American Citizen as the comfort of knowing that the Government cannot take away our freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to peacefully assemble, etc etc,on a whim. If Clinton wakes up tomorrow with a bug up his ass, he cannot legally decide that all jokes and parodies of him must be halted.
The Constitution has been modified before, and so there is a possibility that a new Amendment could be added regarding firearms and guns. It’s not impossible, not very likely, but not impossible.

12

Both posts were very well said, pepper. Now I don’t have to post to this thread (well, OK, not anymore).

13

Rights are given to us by us. We have them because we agree to have them. Different societies have different agreements. There are no such thing as inherent rights.

There is also no such thing as an Inalienable Right in this country.

If a felon is senteced to die, his Right to life has been alienated.
If that felon has his sentence commuted and is simply imprisoned, his Right to liberty has been alienated.
If that felon is freed someday he can never legaly own a gun, his Right to bear arms has been alienated.

Why are this man’s Rights alienated? Because we agree that they should be. No one is born with any Right that we do not agree that they should have. As our society changes, so do our Rights.

14

The number of family members killed by handguns compared to the number of family members injured by assailants invading the home is what, ten thousand to one?

Buying a handgun to protect your home makes as much sense as nailing your pecker to a tree to prevent VD.

15

I’m not saying that the constitution is wrong - far from it - it’s a groovy wee thing and right enough, it’s got some nice values and ideas and so forth, but this is exactly what I’m talking about - you seem to hold it in such amazingly high regard! Who’s to say there aren’t a few bits that could use a bit of spit and polish after the centuries? By the way, I’m English and living in Australia, sooo…

I’m not commenting either way, but I have to point out that people holding faith in the constitution and using it as support in debates and so forth doesn’t seem so very different from (Insert name of Christian group that you feel are interpreting the bible wrongly to support their own evil ends)'s using the Bible as support for their arguments.

You know what this MB needs? A table at the top of every page showing who is on what side in a debate. I can never follow who’s siding with who, and who are the evil villains. It could be headed ‘Autobots’ and ‘Decepticons’, for example. </flippant babbling>

16

. . . this is tough for me. Politically, I have naturally anarchic tendencies, but I hardly think that gun ownership can be considered an “inaliable” right by anyone’s standards. It seems precisely as inaliable as the right to drive a car. You shouild probably have the right, but it’s not to much to ask to take a gun-safety test first.

At the same time, there is a very unsettling problem: since very few states (about 1) require said gun-safety course, just what is the point in registering? Yes, you could say that it helps track down a suspect when a gun is used in a murder, and maybe that’s a good enough reason, but the whole thing just stinks of reactionary oppression. As such, I can understand Crafter_Man’s felings.

Still, considering the massive public (and private) health risk involved in gun ownership, I think it’s impossible to argue for the right to bear arms on any basis other than the second amendment (in other words, on any utilitarian basis) without also arguing for, say, legalization of drugs. Not to get into that. (I avoid this contradiction by being a supporter of both gun and drug ownership rights).

17

WOW! Thank you for that insightful and scientific post, supported with cites and convincing evidence! I know I’m convinced! Now, I’m going to go randomly blow somebody’s head off! (sarcasm)

I hold it in high regards because I agree with it as it stands right now. Again, AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW. Besides, if changes needed to be made, then they will be made. It may be a long slow process, but if this country has proved anything, it has shown that it eventually gets it’s act together. I also hold it in high regards out of respect since millions of people have died honoring and defending the thoughts, ideals, and laws it upholds. All I know is, Americans are not subject to tyrants, monarchy, dictatorships, or the suppressing of any rights in general.

I was using the word “you” in general, not specifically.

Hmmm, here’s the difference
** BIBLE ** Used to support RELIGIOUS debates that are, for the most part, unable to be proved either way. Also, the Bible does not affect EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN A COUNTRY. Supposedly written by God, through men, to Glorify God. A God that not everybody believes in.
** Constitution ** The laws it sets forth directly affects every single American Citizen. Right or wrong, we all live by it. It is our government. It’s the ULTIMATE legal authority in America. Therefore, when debating, it is probably a good idea to use it for a reference. Otherwise, one looks like a fool. Written by Men, through men, to glorify men.
Anyway, if this doesn’t make sense. Sorry, it’s late. I’m tired. Going to bed now. I’ll fix mistakes tomorrow =)

18

The Constitution is so amazing because it ushered in a new era of governmental management. And don’t point out that the Greeks did it first, 'cuz they had a different form of democracy (I think ours is a “constitutional democracy”, but I’m not positive). The main idea behind the US’s Constitution is “if it’s broke, fix it”… it can be amended if need be.

Now, 2Sense…

No it hasn’t. If you notice, most crimes ARE crimes because they violate someone else’s rights. If you go kill someone, you’ve given up your OWN right to life. It’s only common sense, really… in this world, you can do whatever you want (really, you can, try it!)… HOWEVER… you also have to accept the consequences.

19

The founding fathers were pretty awesome guys but just because they said so doesn’t make something true. It also doesn’t make them right for all eternity. The Constitution has had to be amended from time to time. I mean after all, women, blacks, and native Americans weren’t included in all these “inalienable rights” when the darned thing was written. It really only applied to white guys.

Needs2know

20

I would submit that is is the principles outlined in the Constitution that inevitably led to equality and inclusion of formerly excluded groups from the “inalienable rights” category. Inviolate principles don’t need to be amended.