# The right to bear arms **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 17, 2017, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056 "2017-02-17T15:12:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/201 "2017-03-09T23:10:24Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Bone, > > OK, then by what process do you determine that something is true? > > Crane It can be done in a number of ways that aren’t relevant to the non-standard way you’ve defined the word “fact”. Here is what you said that led to you making the false statement of fact and committed the fallacy of equivocation: > [@Crane](#): > > In our modern culture the term ‘fact’ refers to information that can be independently confirmed. Independent observers can confirm that our legal process was established, and is governed by, the Constitution. They can also observe that rights have been created and abolished by our Constitutional processes. That makes those actions fit the definition of fact and eliminates the concept of immutable ‘rights’. A fact is something that is true. Some things that are true may not be able to be independently confirmed. The way you’ve defined facts would rule out things that are true but not yet confirmed. That’s an additional criteria that changes the meaning of the word. It is a fact that quarks existed in the year 1800. Could the existence of quarks be independently confirmed in the year 1800? I would say they could not, but this does not change the fact that they did exist at that time. It is a fact that the Constitution recognizes unenumerated fundamental rights, natural rights. It is a fact that SCOTUS has recognized that the 2nd amendment codified a pre-existing right. It is a fact that you are wrong in your belief that the constitution granted this right. > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Yes I am a Federalist. Your interpretation is wrong. A hint can be found in the text of the amendment, the part that says, _ **“…the right of the people…”** _ People, not the states. > [@Crane](#): > > Bone, > > “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” Bone#185 > > OK - please demonstrate that your statement is fact or as you put it “true”. And here is another reason why your idiosyncratic quoting has led you down the wrong path. The statement I made was that SCOTUS has said the quoted portion, which they have. Are you disputing that or were you aware of this? ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/202 "2017-03-10T14:31:01Z")
Bone, I apologize for my oversight and point out that your quote is an outlier, otherwise SCOTUS would no longer take gun rights cases. Historically facts have been based on four sources: 1. Authority - kings, popes, elders, priests, celebrities etc. 2. Ancient writings - Aristotle, Bible, Galen, Koran etc. 3. Reason - rhetorical pronouncements 4. Independent Confirmation - research, experiment, observation, peer review Our current use of the term arose around 1650 and falls into category 4. Facts are information that can be independently confirmed. As you correctly point out, there exist undiscovered (unnamed) truths. Some in the not too distant past were: Quarks DNA Laser technology the folded helix There are also unconfirmed speculations: Loch Ness Monster Big Foot Ghosts mystical uncodified rights So, is the Constitution a man made method of social organization or is it a mystical document whose truths are divined by an enlightened few (category 1)? My list may be incomplete, in which case I invite you to add a more correct method of determining fact/truth. Crane ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/203 "2017-03-10T15:19:24Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > So, is the Constitution a man made method of social organization or is it a mystical document whose truths are divined by an enlightened few (category 1)? Maybe this is the disconnect? The Constitution _is_ a man-made document, but it is based on a philosophy of god-granted rights. I don’t believe in God, but I believe in rights, and that the Constitution was ostensibly created to protect them, even if the people in charge haven’t done a great job of that over the years. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/204 "2017-03-10T15:26:52Z")
DrCube#203, Agreed - so rights are a reasonable continuation of the social norms of the late 1700s to the extent that they make sense today. Nothing mystical, just practical solutions. Crane ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/205 "2017-03-10T16:04:25Z")
The Founding Fathers would disagree. They held that it was self-evident that all men were created equal, and were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. And that to secure those rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just authority from the consent of the governed. And when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. The rights come first. Government exists to secure them. It is never the case that government comes first, and creates the rights. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/206 "2017-03-10T16:14:49Z")
“Government exist to secure the rights of the people” is a nice ideal, but it is far from universal. “Government can be designed to secure the rights of the people” is more accurate. ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/207 "2017-03-10T16:18:20Z")
S #205 In principle I agree. BUT !! We need an asterisk here. Example: Some call modern artificial healthcare a “right”. - It isn’t. - It never was. BUT !! Some call it that anyway. And when they subvert the reins of power to impose it universally, does an individual’s principled if stubborn refusal to participate remove it from the suite of what they are entitled to? Healthcare is NOT a right. But what are we supposed to do when the agricultural implement wielding mob insists that it is? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/208 "2017-03-10T16:25:57Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > “Government exist to secure the rights of the people” is a nice ideal, but it is far from universal. “Government can be designed to secure the rights of the people” is more accurate. The FF already have that covered. When any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. The purpose of government is to secure the inalienable rights granted by God. If any design isn’t doing that, the people change the design, or abolish the government and start over. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/209 "2017-03-10T16:28:03Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Bone, > > I apologize for my oversight and point out that your quote is an outlier, otherwise SCOTUS would no longer take gun rights cases. If you consider the language of the controlling authority on 2nd amendment jurisprudence to be an outlier, that could explain a lot. The rest of your post is a strange gambit of unsupported non sequiturs obfuscated by poor formatting. As a side note, I’d avoid using the construction of “so…[conclusion]” you seem to be fond of. It’s a poor tactic and obvious strawman. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/210 "2017-03-10T16:29:05Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The FF already have that covered. > > When any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. > > The purpose of government is to secure the inalienable rights granted by God. If any design isn’t doing that, the people change the design, or abolish the government and start over. > > Regards, > Shodan Which god? ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/211 "2017-03-10T16:30:50Z")
S #208 Yes BUT !! > [@](#): > > " all experience hath > shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, > than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are > accustomed. But …" TJ / DOI ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/212 "2017-03-10T16:34:47Z")
Bone, Please deal with the post, not the poster. The SCOTUS opinion is the outlier, not the content of the Constitution. Crane ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/213 "2017-03-10T16:45:55Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > DrCube#203, > > Agreed - so rights are a reasonable continuation of the social norms of the late 1700s to the extent that they make sense today. Nothing mystical, just practical solutions. > > Crane Not sure why this is so difficult for you to grasp. The right to keep and bear arms (i.e. to protect yourself) pre-dates pretty much all of civilization…as so the other inalienable rights defined by the FF (in THEIR opinions). You don’t see hunter-gatherer tribes with arms control. Whether you want to say they come from a creator god (as the FF specified, though perhaps not all believed) or whatever doesn’t detract from that. The trouble that the FF’s faced is that many of the things they saw as rights were NOT the ‘social norms of the late 1700s’ in the old world. That was the problem. They saw those things they considered rights as being stifled by the various governments in Europe, the foremost being that of the British Empire. What they wanted to do was set a precedence that said that certain rights predate the government (and they thought of as inalienable, granted to man by a creator) and thus didn’t derive from the government, but instead were to be protected and not infringed on by the government that was by and for the people. They also were smart enough to know that society would change over time, and that the new US needed a mechanism to change with the times, to adapt to shifting society and circumstance. So…if the 2nd and the right to keep and bear arms is felt to no longer be a protected right because society as a whole feels that way we have a mechanism to remove the amendment…just as we’ve removed other amendments. The FF’s would disagree that this would be a wise course and feel that the state was infringing on an inalienable right that should be protected, but it’s up to us as a society to decide if we still agree with that assessment. To date, we still do. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/214 "2017-03-10T16:50:55Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Which god? Which ever one you want it to be (recall, freedom of religion)…me, as an agnostic, I like to think of the inalienable rights deriving from man’s own history and past as a sentient being, but whatever floats thy boat. In practical terms they were talking about Christianity, since the majority of people were (and still are) Christian in the US. I suspect that many of the founders were theists but not necessarily Christians and believed in something like the Mason’s creator god. ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/215 "2017-03-10T16:55:02Z")
XT #213 Without a right of self-defense, a right of assault & plunder is implied. > [@](#): > > “If you have rights, you have to have a remedy.” > Wendy Patton: Human Rights Watch, July 7, 2003. NPR Diane Reme Show PS XT, 225cc? ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/216 "2017-03-10T17:07:12Z")
XT#213, Well reasoned and well said. If I understand you correctly - rights are traditional and can be modified to fit societal changes. Crane ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/217 "2017-03-10T17:14:01Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > XT#213, > > Well reasoned and well said. > > If I understand you correctly - rights are traditional and can be modified to fit societal changes. > > Crane Societies attitudes and world view changes over time. The protected rights defined in the Constitution and the various Amendments can be changed with the changing times if society as a whole desires such a change…the mechanisms to do so are in place, and there is precedence to do so. So, to this specific discussion, society COULD decide that the right to keep and bear arms as laid out in the 2nd could be removed from the Constitution. It would still be considered, by many, to be an inalienable right, but no longer specifically protected by the Constitution and thus open to more stringent restrictions or even bannings than it has been (of course, like all protected rights it doesn’t and hasn’t meant there were no restrictions at all…just as we have certain very narrow restrictions on speech we have restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms). Understand, I’m no Constitutional law scholar, so I might have some or even most of this wrong. This is my take, FWIW. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/218 "2017-03-10T17:34:44Z")
XT, I agree. Of course, the issue is the undercurrent of those who cling to the idea that their beliefs are above the literal Constitution. My observation is that the Constitution defines the American legal system. Folks are free to believe whatever they wish as long they follow the results of the Constitutional system. Crane ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/219 "2017-03-10T17:45:23Z")
Some establishments of religion incorporate the Constitution into their dogma. That’s OK as long as they do not then turn around and impose the result on the rest of us. Crane ---
**Author:** ![Weisshund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ba8739/32.png) [@Weisshund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weisshund)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/220 "2017-03-10T19:58:11Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I don’t want a nuke, but if I’m going to stand my ground against a strong assault team sent by a repressive government I think I’ll want rocket launchers and howitzers just to start. I offered an M47 tank, that you can legally buy. It’s a lot of financial burden for the average person to provide that though. Hence the Govt’s responsibility to pick up the big dollar items “Common Defense” But if you are so inclined, and financially able, as some are, you are allowed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056.md?page=12)