This isn’t a legal argument like the OP but my moral right as a person to own firearms for self defense (among other rights) ultimately aren’t dependent on laws or the government acknowledging I have them. I think people get far consumed debating laws, legal documents and their interpretations rather than the rights they explicitly concern.
They actually are. Same as in every country in the world. You can think whatever you want about your rights but you may end up in jail for it. Different places have very different laws about this stuff and no amount of “my rights” will keep you out of jail.
The trouble with arguments involving laws, Amendments and the use of weaponry is that, when the people invoking said laws and Amendments to justify their ownership and use of weaponry are finally forced to say “In the end no law or Amendment is going to make me give up my weapons!”, I sort of feel that I have wasted a shitload of time arguing with people that are bullshitting me for their own amusement.
BTW, when someone says something akin to “They can come for my guns, but I ‘lost them in the lake’, wink, wink”, I don’t think funny or clever are the words that first come to mind.
You’re missing my point. Having a right doesn’t mean it can’t be practically violated by another person or group under one pretense or another. If the government made a law that said it can rape and murder its citizens at will I still think it’s morally wrong for them to do so and you still have an intrinsic right not to be raped and murdered by virtue of being a sentient being.
Did cavemen have an intrinsic right to firearms?
Put another way, an intrinsic right to self-defense is not at all the same thing as an intrinsic right to firearms.
Silly “ifs” that no-one is bringing up are fun to play with…but would you happen to have any comparable realities we can discuss?
And with that you have made pointless the civil rights movement of the 60’s.
You can call it silly but it does very much have a basis in reality. Human history is full of countless examples of states making arbitrary rules and laws and deciding it has the right to hurt, kill and imprison people for any number of reasons.
Vague generalities that show all…and nothing, and no actual answer to the question I asked.
I don’t remember MLK mentioning AR-15s in that dream he had.
Nothing to goddamn do with that. It had to do with demanding rights that some said they didn’t have.
Americans have a long and hallowed tradition of ignoring bad and stupid laws, from forcibly resisting the first federal tax on whiskey to giving shelter and aid to runaway slaves, to making or drinking alcohol, to possession of marijuana, to not submitting to a draft. Americans only approve of “law’n’order” when it happens to favor them; scofflawing and civil disobedience are as American as Mom and Apple Pie.
Like what for an alternative?
Knives, pointed sticks, bananas, trebuchets, clubs (Studio 54 destroyed quite a few people, I understand) etc.
Beginning in the early 70’s a stupid and unreasonable law helped boon a multi-billion dollar industry manufacturing devices to help folks break that law.
I don’t dispute the right. Really, I don’t. It has a long and respected tradition in this country.
But I am curious. How broad is that right? Does it include a rocket propelled grenade? An automatic weapon?
What about restrictions? My 1st amendment right to free expression is pretty important, but it doesn’t give me permission to yell from a bullhorn at 2 am on a residential street. And my freedom of religion won’t condone a peyote trip.
So is it also okay for the government to impose restrictions (say, an insurance requirement, or a mental health screening) before a person can exercise that right to own firearms for self defense?
I mean, we have a right to vote, but if you intend to vote you first need to register, and registration requires you to not be a felon, or have been adjudicated incompetent, and to prove your citizenship.
Would you endorse the same expectations for exercising gun rights?
Now now, we don’t want absolutes in that. There are plenty of gun owners who DO fit the above (possibly, and even probably the majority of them) but there are plenty, including people on this board who think otherwise. See the discussion in this thread and many others about otherwise liberal / liberal-leaning gun owners.
But if we’re going to go back to first causes of what are your rights and where do they come from, @Babale did that thread a while back, and quite well just over a year ago:
I’ll concede that I once wrote a post on a pro-gun board that I couldn’t see how the private ownership of MANPADS could ever be permitted; the legitimate utility of them effectively zero, the potential for harm enormous. But even then the potential for slippery slope disturbs me.
On the other hand, does it mean the government can ban bullhorns? Or require you to pass a test before you can buy a bullhorn? Or require a special license to carry a bullhorn in public? That’s what really irks gun owners when it comes to gun control restrictions– the element of prior restraint, of injunction against buying, owning or carrying guns based on what you might do.
Do we? The long history of enfranchisement in the USA and before that in Britain/England and before that all the way back to the Roman Republic is that a person can be a citizen with all the protections of the law, but not privileged to vote.
What those are doing is proving that you are the person you say you are, and that that person is in fact enfranchised. I believe you DO have to present proof of citizenship as a requirement to buy a gun from a FFL holder, and I could see a law making selling a gun to an ille undocumented immigrant illegal, but naturally too many people would howl at that.
No, and mostly no (special licence, hard to get, very small limited numbers available)
I already posted that every right has limitations, and the 2nd needs those restrictions more than some others.
Not when I registered. I filled out a form, and swore it was true.
Or you can’t carry a bullhorn on public transit (not USING it mind you- that would be reasonable, but you cant even carry it on a bus or subway or train from place A to place B), or near any parks, any government properly, or any private property (without specific owner permission). . So think about that- you can carry your bullhorn on public property or private property. Isnt that a ban on bullhorns? (These are all real restrictions New York recently passed after SCOTUS said they had to give a gun permit to anyone of good moral character who applied and could pay the fee)
You have to prove you are a resident of that state, and that you pass a background check. So, a resident alien could buy a gun.
I know that there are limitations to the 2nd Amendment that some gun supporters will admit to, but are those restrictions due to necessity, or morality? If enough power is gained by the gun lobby will most (if not all) restrictions on what can be owned and by whom just disappear, or will there be some restrictions that even the gun lobby and its supporters just won’t touch, even if they could?
The gun lobby, i.e the NRA has less than 5 million members, as opposed to about 100 million gun owners. The NRA really is kinda insignificant. It’s lobby budget is rather small.
Those other 95 million gun owners vote Democrat too. They just dont want their guns restricted- guns used for- Home defence, hunting, target shooting, cowboy action shooting, Olympic sports, etc. They WANT guns kept out of the hands of criminals. They backed the Biden bipartisan gun control bill.
The “gun lobby” is really unimportant, sine they oppose any gun law, and will vote GOP even if the dem candidate is more for gun rights than the GOP guy is- so why bother mollifying them?
The 95 million or so law abiding gun owners however can not be taken for granted. Calling them “gun fetishes” or “gun nuts” will do nothing but turn them against you.
You want to ban future sales of “assault weapons”? They dont care that much. You want to do house to house gun confiscations? They care.