Heck, it’s not even that extreme… just promise me that A: no nutjob will ever manage to get his hands on a gun and/or pose a threat to me in any way, and B: at no time in the future will a governmental body pose a threat towards restricting my rights. Much simpler…
RE: The “controversy” about rights being “artificial” - In this regard, I consider rights to be much like breasts. Real or fake, if they’re nice, they’re just as valuable.
OK, first, the right to be armed is NOT unique to the United States:
I honestly don’t see how you can be expected to resist oppression if you are not allowed to be armed.
Anyway, on to other points…
Tell that to the Jews sent to their deaths in gas chambers and ovens during WWII. Better yet, tell it to the 750 Jews who held off the German Army for over a month. Or to the people in Rwanda who were slaughtered. Or the victims of Stalin’s purges. Etc.
Get the point?
For the record, I agree with Kalashnikov completely. You seem to make the assumption that the government has absolute authority and power over all of us, and we are only allowed to do what they choose to “let us” do. This government is by, for, and of the people. That means the government does not have any power that WE do not give to IT.
And regardless of what other countries feel about it, the foundation of our government is this: The Bill of Rights, and therefore the United States, recognizes that the people have certain rights, one of which is the right to keep and bear arms in defense of self and country. The 2nd Amendment is the legal, documented declaration that this particular right will not be infringed.
Um, you do realize, do you not, that the U.S. Constitution (more specifically, the Bill of Rights) sets forth the rights of the citizens and not the government? The government doesn’t have “rights,” and it doesn’t have abilities except as given to it by the people.
Actually the bill of rights is mostly about what the government is NOT allowed to do.
The government shall make no law infringing etc. etc. etc. (Paraphrased, sue me)
**
He gave the Protestants weapons, with the aim being to oppress the Catholics.
**
I honestly don’t see how you can be expected to resist oppression if you are not allowed to be armed.
[/quote]
**
Ask Gandhi. Oh wait, you can’t. He was SHOT. Or how about Mao and Lenin who “resisted oppression” by murdering thousands of innocents. Sounds like the world would be a better place if guns were never invented.
Now, once again I reiterate, I DO NOT think that guns should be outlawed. Its too late for that.
Really??? :rolleyes:
My point was that the government doesn’t have “rights,” so your questions “what right does the government have . . . ?” make no sense in the context of human rights, which is the context the word is being used in here.
If you mean “what ability does the government have” to do various things . . . well, the government has the ability to do any lawful thing (which, incidentally but obviously, infringing on the Constitutional rights of the populace is not). So the answer to your first question (“what right does the government have to tell me what religion I can be?”) is “None.” The answer to the rest of them depend upon the specifics of the speech/association/defense you propose to undertake. Your constitutional rights as a citizen may be fundamental (and arguably inherent), but they are not unlimited.
Yep, sounds like a list of things SOMEONE is not supposed to do. And who else but the government would need to be restricted from passing laws etc. ?
KALASHNIKOV, you do realize that a “right” is the affirmative permission (not necessarily ability) to do a given thing"? Any limitation upon the power to do something is not the grant of a “right;” it is a limitation.
By telling the government what it cannot do, the Bill of Rights confers no rights upon it. The rights granted through the Constitution (specifically the Bill of Rights) are granted to the citizenry, not the government. Your having posted the Bill of Rights and having highlighted its restrictions upon government action does not change this. Do you see the distinction I am drawing?
I didn’t say the Bill of Rights granted any rights to the government. I was responding to your apparant disagreement
with my previous statement, “Actually the bill of rights is mostly about what the government is NOT allowed to do.”
Other parts of the Constitution do grant “Powers” to the government though.
Sorry, Jodi, I have to disagree with you.
There is nothing listed regarding permission. Contrast this:
Seems you have the two concepts confused. A right needs no justification or permission. A right is that to which I am justly entitled, and which you are not entitled to take from me.
The Bill of Rights is specifically a set of restrictions upon government, declaring powers specifically forbidden to it. Not a letter of permissions for the people.
If you don’t believe me, get it from the source:
Aren’t you an attorney? If they don’t even teach the basics of the Constitution in law school, then I’m no longer shocked at the state of affairs in this country. You’d think someone who practices law would be at least passingly familiar with the Supreme Law of the Land and the function of the Bill of Rights. Sheesh.
by the way, for any citation fanatics [sub](I was going to say cite-whores, but I figured somebody would complain)[/sub] who are reading, my souce for definitions is the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, at http://www.m-w.com
Irrelevant. His point was that the U.S. isn’t the only country to consider it important that the populace be armed. Just because his intentions were misguided…
And if he had a gun himself, he wouldn’t have been.
Thanks for reminding me, Spoofe.
WRONG!!! Did you even bother to read the entire quote? Here it is again, and I’ll parse it for you just to be sure you understand it:
Ok, So the king subverted the protestant religion and the laws of the kingdom. And how did he do that?
Ah, he disarmed the Protestants, while allowing the papists (that is, Catholics) to remain armed. Got that part this time?
So what is the remedy?
The Bill of Rights declares the right to be armed. The aim was to have ALL the people armed, not just the Catholics.
I believe this is a new record–I don’t think I’ve ever had more than two people misspell my username in the same thread before.
vorfod said:
You get a lot of lip service for them worldwide, anyway. Nonetheless, if the KGB or the Gestapo or whatever the local equivalent is says their citizens have no such freedoms, then those citizens don’t–not unless the holders of this worldwide consensus are willing to go in and impose those freedoms by force. I find this prospect unlikely, especially with, say, China.
Dave Stewart said:
What evidence do you have that there is? It’s not that I don’t think the concept of rights for everybody isn’t a nice idea, but if whoever controls a given area won’t play by those rules then nice ideas just don’t work.
msmith537 said:
Where exactly do you think “rights” come from? The mind of God? Great thinkers? Manifestations of the mass unconsciousness? They have to come from somewhere, after all.
In the real world a “right” which the government refuses to recognize is just a nice phrase to repeat to yourself over and over after they throw you in a cell for being a troublemaker.
Dave: Give me a break - I’d already apologised.
Are you trying to tell me that regimes that are resistant to the concept of universal human rights will actually listen to the rebuttal of their arguments? Even if America rescinded the right to bear arms, those sort of regimes would find another poor excuse to use as ammunition for their resistance. I can’t see that restricting the rights of Americans for an exercise that is bound to end in futility can be worthwhile.
(FWIW, I’m not a huge fan of the idea of the right to bear arms - look at my profile, I live in one of the countries with the strickest restrictions on owning weapons, and I personally think it’s a damn good idea - I just think there are better arguments against the right to bear arms than the one you’re using.
{b]MysterEcks:** I agree with your point - let me try and clarify what I meant. There are certain basic rights that the majority of people believe should exist (or, to use your words, pay a lot of lip service to). I recognise they may not necessarily exist, just that if a right has a huge consensus behind it worldwide to being a basic human right, then we have to consider the possibility that it should exist, even if it doesn’t currently exist everywhere.
Nowhere does it mention the right to bear arms in self-defense, huh. Correct me if I’m mistaken.
I believe we have the right to self-defense, this seems well established in judeo-christian thought. It may be that some feel it immoral to raise arms against another. Similarly, there were religious sects that preached total abstinence. They aren’t around anymore, either. I guess my point is one can “non-violence” themselves right out of existence.
The right to self defense is the most fundamental of all, and in a modern context, almost by definition would include firearms. Additionally, but not exclusively, we can be called upon by our government to bear arms involuntarily in the service of our country. Is it not odd to deny a right to a citizen that in other circumstance may be mandatory?
Misguided intentions + guns = situations in Israel, Northern Ireland, etc.
And if he had a gun himself, he wouldn’t have been. **
[/QUOTE]
Wow. It takes a minute to grasp the sheep stupidity of that statement. Gandhi was an old man. He used a walking stick for god’s sake. He was killed by one of his guards (carrying a gun ostensibly for the purpose of PROTECTION) by suprise. The only way he could fight back in any way was if he had missed. And then, who would win? An old man who can barely raise a gun, or a trained guard who wasn’t afraid to die for his cause?
Sorry about that misinterpretation of who was being oppressed, but that seems less relevant that the fact that guns were being used FOR oppression.
[quote]
the 2nd Amendment
A well regualted Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Don’t tell me about the intent of the 2nd amendment, because its stated right in there. It is to have a well regulated, thus under government control, militia. Unless you’re in a well regulated milita, then you’re not fulfilling the amendment’s aim.
OK, lets.
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” - Ghandi
“I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi’s agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.” - Ghandi