# 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:** 8
**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 6, 2017, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/141 "2017-03-06T22:25:49Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Bone#137, > > So, what is the nature of the Constitution: > > 1. The Founders codified rights that were granted by a Deity and are therefore immutable. > > 2. The Founders codified solutions to problems of their day and provided a process for amendment to meet changing needs. > > Crane Your excluded middle is showing. The question is so open ended any answer offered is likely to be incomplete at best, including the two choices you’ve presented. As it relates to the 2nd amendment which is arguably the topic of this thread, the nature of it within the constitution was to recognize a pre-existing right and to take off the table certain actions by the federal government. ---
**Author:** ![Navy\_draftee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ec9cab/32.png) [@Navy\_draftee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Navy_draftee)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/142 "2017-03-07T03:19:52Z")
> [@August\_West](#): > > That “law” only applies when hunting migratory waterfowl. My shotgun holds 8 rounds and is perfectly legal. You are correct ! Where in the world do people find all those myths similar to the one you debunked ? ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/143 "2017-03-07T03:41:05Z")
\*\*"As Hamilton said in Federalist 84, arguing that adding a bill of rights to the constitution was unnecessary, dangerous and absurd: ``` "I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." #104** ``` > [@](#): > > “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular and what no just government should refuse to rest on inference.” Thomas Jefferson ---
**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 7, 2017, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/144 "2017-03-07T03:41:32Z")
Bone#141, A pre-existing right? By what authority - Bible? - Aristotle? - Reason? Crane ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/145 "2017-03-07T03:48:23Z")
> [@](#): > > "Bone#141, > > A pre-existing right? > > By what authority - Bible? - Aristotle? - Reason?" C #144 Reason, logic. If we don’t have a right of self-defense, then wouldn’t that by logic of reciprocity impart a right of attack to any that would move against us? It would appear to be exquisitely simple. **Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.** > [@](#): > > “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12 (the Golden Rule) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/146 "2017-03-07T03:50:27Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Fortunately, both the legal and the philosophical arguments support the right to self defense and the right to arms. The legal argument in this country has consistently recognized the philosophical argument as valid and the truism of the pre-existing right of self defense in arms. The legal right exists as written and currently interpreted but a legal right is not “inalienable”. It is granted by society. The philosophical right though you are reaching for. I would agree we all have a right to self defense. About as primal as something can be. That said your right to self defense does not necessarily include guns. Why should it? If so then you have a right to any weapon sufficient to best guarantee your self defense. If one of the primary motivations for civilian gun ownership is to protect us from the government then we absolutely need access to missiles and tanks and basically anything the military has. ---
**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 7, 2017, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/147 "2017-03-07T03:53:01Z")
Sear, So, the right to bear arms is an invention of the founders, based on reasoned need? Crane ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/148 "2017-03-07T04:21:58Z")
> [@](#): > > “your right to self defense does not necessarily include guns. Why should it?” WM #146 Because guns are included in those things against which we must defend ourselves; and a rolled up newspaper is not a reliable defense against a heroin addict trying to relieve you of your wallet, your car keys, or whatever; and is willing to shoot & kill you to do so. > [@](#): > > “So, the right to bear arms is an invention of the founders, based on reasoned need? > Crane” Jefferson explained it this way: And while Jefferson was just a guy, we should bear in mind that Jefferson is the author of the seminal Founding document of the United States of America, quoted here: > [@](#): > > … 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.— That to > secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their > just powers from the consent of the governed … Thus, the rights don’t come from government. Rights are PROTECTED by government. ---
**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 7, 2017, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/149 "2017-03-07T13:43:17Z")
Sear#148, OK, Jefferson had divine insight. That means the government is protecting divine rights that the government itself defines? If that is the case then our government is a religion and the Constitution is dogma. Crane ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/150 "2017-03-07T15:01:31Z")
C, Have we cyber-known one another for years? From Yuku perhaps? If so, I’ve enjoyed your constructive approach for as long, including here. But I wonder if I’m failing to recognize a satirical tint from you here. > [@](#): > > “Sear#148, > OK, Jefferson had divine insight.” I would interpret “divine insight” as insight characteristic of a deity: the kind where you can clean up at the roulette table. But if you instead merely meant Jefferson had (human, not supernatural) opinion on it, I think there’s no doubt about it. > [@](#): > > “That means the government is protecting divine rights that the government itself defines?” It’s not clear to me what you’re probing for here. - Are you asking my opinion? - Are you seeking clarification on original intent? - Are you seeking elucidation on the origin of rights? If the latter: Soaring political, philosophical, or theological rhetoric aside, he has rights who dare defend them. We had a little e. pluribus unum working for U.S. for a while. But the inmates have overtaken the asylum (a particularly alarming metaphor in the era of the Trump administration). > [@](#): > > “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty is in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” James Madison C adds: > [@](#): > > “If that is the case then our government is a religion and the Constitution is dogma. > Crane” Right. It’s more complicated than that. Human rights aren’t “Creator endowed” in the same way the “M&M” is stamped on each individual chocolate candy. I conclude from my cursory study of such history is that Jefferson, Franklin, & Adams were merely trying to avoid the impression that rights come from government. Problem is, if they’d been plain-spoken about it: - rights don’t come from government - the inevitable question would soon follow. - \*\* Oh Yeah?! Well if not from there, then where?! \*\* - And here we are puzzling over it centuries afterward. Probably not too sensible to over-think it. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And I realize, we teeter on the precipice of debating: - right, vs - moral, vs - ethic ---
**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 7, 2017, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/151 "2017-03-07T15:21:02Z")
Sear#150, Yep, same old Crane - I’m very pleased to see you again. I am curious about the distinction between rights being created by the Constitution or being given by God. It is a worthy area for exploration. (1) Reason dictates that the Constitution provides a secular process for social order. The laws and amendments produced resulted from that process being applied to changing needs over a period of years. (2) The concept of a Constitution that is inspired by God to protect rights he created is mind boggling. It requires divine knowledge and imparts divine power. Whatever else the Founders may have written they were very clear that the Constitution is purely the work of the people and done in opposition to the concept of divine rights. Crane ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/152 "2017-03-07T15:49:49Z")
> [@sear](#): > > Because guns are included in those things against which we must defend ourselves; and a rolled up newspaper is not a reliable defense against a heroin addict trying to relieve you of your wallet, your car keys, or whatever; and is willing to shoot & kill you to do so. The evidence suggests owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning a gun. Evidence also suggests the effective uses of a gun in self defense are rare. But, if you want to include things against which I may have to defend myself from we are back to letting me have a tank in case the government runs amok and I have to defend myself from them. ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/153 "2017-03-07T16:09:08Z")
> [@](#): > > “I am curious about the distinction between rights being created by the Constitution or being given by God. It is a worthy area for exploration.” I hope it’s a false binary. John Locke gets homage for inspiring Jefferson. But I suspect the ideological foundation of the U.S.A. is even more fundamental, and long-tenured. The ancients didn’t invent it. But they acknowledged it, contended with it: > [@](#): > > quod alias non fuit licitum, necessitas licitum facit: > > What otherwise was not lawful, necessity makes lawful. It’s not viable to structure a nation on the Klingon / might makes right social model. > [@](#): > > “(2) The concept of a Constitution that is inspired by God to protect rights he created is mind boggling.” Perhaps you revere the Founders more than I do. I think they were problem solvers. KG3 = bad guy, no taxation without representation didn’t work, so dump him: “do it yourself”. > [@](#): > > " It requires divine knowledge and imparts divine power." I’m not seeing that. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but are all U.S. federal agencies ultimately tied to one of our 3 branches (legislative, executive, or judicial) of federal government? Either way, an FBI agent may enforce federal law. But that doesn’t impart to each (or any) agent the same scope of authority of the head of that branch of government. Our governments may be tangentially religion inspired. But Christmas and Easter aside, I’d like to think it’s mainly secular, “In god we trust” to the contrary notwithstanding. > [@](#): > > "Whatever else the Founders may have written they were very clear that the Constitution is purely the work of the people and done in opposition to the concept of divine rights. > > Crane " C #151 It is ironic, if not a little annoying. They showed a little ankle. But that may have been a concession of political compromise, an expedient. By appeasing the believers, the agnostics may have increased the tally enough to reach the critical mass needed to - git 'er dun -. > [@](#): > > “We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.” > Benjamin Franklin (1706-90), U.S. statesman, writer. Comment at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776, in reply to John Hancock’s remark that the revolutionaries should be unanimous in their action. ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/154 "2017-03-07T16:31:31Z")
> [@](#): > > “The evidence suggests owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning a gun. Evidence also suggests the effective uses of a gun in self defense are rare.” WM #152 Those are two excellent and important points. I am curious. Perhaps in the muzzle-loading days that required knowledge of how to operate the gun, those lacking the knowledge didn’t know enough to hurt themselves with it. But with a modern revolver, a 4 year old strong enough to pull the trigger could probably knock himself on his own butt with the recoil, and perhaps kill a playmate in the process. In any case, whatever the reason, the ignorance of the many should not be used to leverage the oppression of the few. I have extensive small arms training and experience, both in the military, and law enforcement. I’d be comfortable having a gun in the house; as I know how to clean them, secure them, how to unload them, and how to fire them. BTW, I would never grant permission to have a Glock on my land. It’s one of the most hideously badly designed guns I’ve ever seen! But there are sensible designs available. The M-1911-A1 and derivatives seem OK. And I think Sig Sauer may design their hardware pretty well. > [@](#): > > “But, if you want to include things against which I may have to defend myself from we are back to letting me have a tank in case the government runs amok and I have to defend myself from them.” WM #152 I doubt a fully armed M-1 would have helped the Branch Davidians. I’d be more concerned about defending against burglars than Martians. On my estate (hundreds of acres of forest inside the Adirondack Park) we have bear, canids (wild & occasionally domestic) perhaps a wildcat or two, and poachers; armed criminals prowling around in camo. Getting a gun might not be a bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/155 "2017-03-07T17:42:34Z")
> [@sear](#): > > In any case, whatever the reason, the ignorance of the many should not be used to leverage the oppression of the few. I posted this earlier but bears a repeat: The comedian Jim Jefferies speaks to this point: \*"If you’re a responsible gun owner and you don’t fuck around with them then you should be allowed your guns. But that’s not how society works. We have to play to the 1% that are such fuckwits that they ruin it for the rest of us. We have to walk as slow as our slowest person to keep society fucking moving. I take drugs like a fucking champion. We should all be allowed to take drugs but we can’t, can we, because Sarah took drugs and she stabbed her fucking kids. Thanks Sarah, you fucked it up for everyone! Everyone should be able to drive their car as fast as they can do it. But we can’t because Jonathan got drunk and ran over a family. Thanks Jonathan! Now I have to drive at 30 you fucking idiot!"\* [SOURCE](https://youtu.be/n71CSp8NJlc?t=667) > [@](#): > > I doubt a fully armed M-1 would have helped the Branch Davidians. Know what else didn’t help them? Guns. ---
**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 7, 2017, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/156 "2017-03-07T18:10:31Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I posted this earlier but bears a repeat: > > The comedian Jim Jefferies speaks to this point: > > \*"If you’re a responsible gun owner and you don’t fuck around with them then you should be allowed your guns. > > But that’s not how society works. We have to play to the 1% that are such fuckwits that they ruin it for the rest of us. We have to walk as slow as our slowest person to keep society fucking moving. > > I take drugs like a fucking champion. We should all be allowed to take drugs but we can’t, can we, because Sarah took drugs and she stabbed her fucking kids. Thanks Sarah, you fucked it up for everyone! > > Everyone should be able to drive their car as fast as they can do it. But we can’t because Jonathan got drunk and ran over a family. Thanks Jonathan! Now I have to drive at 30 you fucking idiot!"\* [SOURCE](https://youtu.be/n71CSp8NJlc?t=667) > > Know what else didn’t help them? Guns. No, we as a society simply have to be able to rationally assess the risks verse the rewards and do a cost to benefits assessment. While 10k murders and 30k of all types of deaths (or whatever it is currently) SOUNDS like a lot, in the greater scheme of things it really isn’t. I’m unsure why because Jonathan got drunk the speed limit would shift to 30mph (I know…guy is just a comedian and not really expected to make sense :p), but we aren’t talking about outlawing alcohol because of Jonathan…we are setting reasonable limits on the amount of alcohol in the blood stream based on a cost to benefits analysis of most of the population and then creating laws to enforce them…i.e. we are setting limits on the use of alcohol. We do that with guns as well (and ‘drugs’ too…last time I checked I was using several ‘drugs’ perfectly legally, mostly to help me sleep :p). You can own and keep one (for most common categories of the things…no, you can’t have a nuclear bomb or a missile defense system, but then even if you could 99% of the population wouldn’t be able to afford it anyway so it’s kind of a silly point)…you can’t shoot someone with it or use it to commit a crime. You can’t drink past a certain limit and drive and be legal. You can’t use certain TYPES of ‘drugs’ legally for recreational purposes. You throw the ball, you catch the ball and you hit the ball. Pretty simple, really… ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/157 "2017-03-07T18:18:47Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Whatever else the Founders may have written they were very clear that the Constitution is purely the work of the people and done in opposition to the concept of divine rights. This is incorrect. The Founders were very clear that the Constitution is purely the work of people and done in _support and for the protection_ of divine rights. Not that I believe in the divine, and many Founders didn’t either, but the point was that [rights exist whether the government writes them down on paper or not](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/158 "2017-03-07T18:57:48Z")
WM #155 Thanks for the reprise. And while we agree it is a functional dynamic in our society, it’s not a universal rule. Our First Amendment rights have not been revoked, because Bertrand committed perjury. > [@](#): > > unalienable (ùn-âl´ye-ne-bel, -â´lê-e-) adjective > Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable > > Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved. You are RIGHT!! SOME of our rights are infringed or usurped in consequence of perceived justification. But unalienable means inalienable. Jefferson used the word for a reason. > [@](#): > > “Know what else didn’t help them? Guns.” WM #155 a) They’re not immortal, and are not still alive, so it calls for speculation, because: b) We don’t know how long they’d have lived if they’d been unarmed and defenseless. What we do know is that the federal agents stormed their compound guns ablaze, and that the ensuing siege kept them alive for another … 7 weeks? Allowing a government to be better armed than the citizenry, or for a government to disarm that citizenry is an unfortunate error for the citizenry. > [@](#): > > “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms: history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.” Adolf Hitler ---
**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 7, 2017, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/159 "2017-03-07T18:58:49Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > This is incorrect. The Founders were very clear that the Constitution is purely the work of people and done in _support and for the protection_ of divine rights. > > Not that I believe in the divine, and many Founders didn’t either, but the point was that [rights exist whether the government writes them down on paper or not](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). Please list these “divine rights”. If they are so set into the fabric of the universe, then there should be some concensus on what they are specifically. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056/160 "2017-03-07T19:09:09Z")
The consensus is in the Constitution. If a different consensus arises, then the Constitution can be amended. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-to-bear-arms/780056.md?page=9)