The right to bear arms

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Shodan

The consensus is in the Constitution. If a different consensus arises, then the Constitution can be amended.

Regards,
Shodan

Or SCOTUS will find it in the penumbra.

[Czarcasm]

@Shodan

The consensus is in the Constitution. If a different consensus arises, then the Constitution can be amended.

Regards,
Shodan

I guess expecting to get a specific list was just too much to ask for.

[XT]

@Czarcasm

I guess expecting to get a specific list was just too much to ask for.

Or you could simply Google it. Note, this is from Conserapedia so click with care:

According to the Founders, unalienable rights belong to each person by virtue of the fact that man is made in God’s image, and is therefore endowed with certain attributes, powers, freedoms, and legal protections as part of his essence. These rights are thus inseparable—or unalienable—from each person individually and from the human race in general. They are a gift from the Creator and it is impossible for government to alter or nullify mankind’s divine inheritance. Except in extremely rare and limited circumstances, the unalienable rights of a particular individual, or the population at large, cannot be suspended, abrogated, or diminished by government. When government does take action against a particular right, it may only do so to the extent necessary to address a genuine concern for public safety. (See “Legitimate Exceptions” below.) Unalienable rights automatically belong to each individual at the moment his or her life begins and continue throughout that person’s time on earth.

An exhaustive list of the unalienable rights possessed by man would probably fill several volumes. However, at a minimum they include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In general, the courts have not decided which rights are unalienable and which are not. Nonetheless, some philosophers have identified the following items, derived from the American Bill of Rights, as expanding on these themes:

To act in self-defense (personal, family, innocents, nation).
To own and carry weapons for self-defense and for ensuring that the nation remains free.
To own and control private property (land, money, personal items, intellectual property, etc.)
To earn a living and keep the fruit of one’s labor.
To freely migrate within the country or to leave the country.
To worship -- or not worship -- God in the manner one chooses.
To associate with -- or disassociate from -- any person or group.
To express any idea through print, voice, banner, or other media.
To be secure in one’s home, papers, and person against unwarranted searches and seizures (privacy).
To be advised of the charges, in the event of arrest.
To have a judge determine if the accused should be held for trial or for punishment.
To be tried by a jury of one’s peers and face one’s accuser, in the event of being charged with a crime.
To be tried by a jury of one’s peers, in the event of a suit in which the disputed amount is substantive.
To suffer no cruel or unusual punishment.
To establish, monitor, control, and petition our servant government to help secure the above rights.
To abolish said government, when it becomes destructive of these rights.

[sear]

“An exhaustive list of the unalienable rights possessed by man would probably fill several volumes. However, at a minimum they include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” #163

According to the 9th Amendment, if it was legal, a right on Dec. 15, 1791 it should be legal & a right today, unless otherwise specified.

[Crane]

The concept of God given rights stretches credulity, although I’m certain some folks could fill volumes with their wish lists of ‘rights’.

The second amendment was clearly not described by Jesus. Neither did he propose a right to self defense. So what God grants these rights? Definitely not Christ.

What is the factual basis for these, otherwise mythical, rights being endowed at birth?

The fact is that all of our rights were created by the Constitution, are defined by our courts and are protected by our government. This fact can be readily confirmed by independent investigators.
Crane

[Bone]

@Crane

The concept of God given rights stretches credulity, although I’m certain some folks could fill volumes with their wish lists of ‘rights’.

I’m not a subscriber to “god given”, but if you think the concept of natural rights stretches credulity I’m guessing you haven’t read much constitutional jurisprudence.

The fact is that all of our rights were created by the Constitution, are defined by our courts and are protected by our government. This fact can be readily confirmed by independent investigators.

No, that is not a fact and you are wrong. The constitution recognizes certain rights as pre-existing. The 9th amendment recognizes rights as pre-existing. In the 2nd amendment context, SCOTUS has consistently held the 2nd amendment to recognize a pre-existing right. In other words, NOT created by the constitution. The very institution you call upon as defining these rights has stated in no uncertain terms that the right to self defense in arms is pre-existing the constitution.

Independent investigators? Seriously? I’m sure you think this is some marvelous point but it’s utter nonsense.

[sear]

“The concept of God given rights stretches credulity” C #165

The concept of god stretches credulity, for similar if not identical reason.

If there is no god, then there is no source for “god-given” or “Creator endowed” rights.
We have no proof of god.
Yet the text of our Constitution is a certitude.
Weigh a doubt against a certainty and what do you get?

“The concept of God given rights stretches credulity” C #165

It may be more practical to think of them as “natural rights”.
Even before the first proto-human swung from a tree branch individuals and perhaps families and clans have been defending themselves. A bee’s sting may be suicidal. But the drones protect their clones & in so doing; the genes are defended even at the cost of some individuals.

“No, that is not a fact and you are wrong. The constitution recognizes certain rights as pre-existing.” B #166

Understood.
Perhaps the distinction C #165 failed to make clear was the distinction between the origin of a right, and the commitment to not infringe or usurp such rights.

“Independent investigators? Seriously? I’m sure you think this is some marvelous point but it’s utter nonsense.” B #166

OK
How about “objective analysis”?

Perhaps Crane was trying to distinguish the origin of a right, from a defender of that right.

[Crane]

If rights were pre-existing the Constitution would not be necessary.

A ‘fact’ is information that can be confirmed by independent investigators. ‘Bone’ gave an example when he suggesting investigating the history of jurisprudence to support his position. That’s the process for determining ‘fact’. There is no factual evidence of pre-existing rights.

‘Natural Rights’, make sense. They are enumerated in the DOI. However, to be more than a rhetorical flourish they require substance.

Life = shelter, food, medical care
Liberty = secure mobility
Pursuit of Happiness = employment

Seems we should agree that those are the natural components of human endeavor.

Crane

[sear]

“If rights were pre-existing the Constitution would not be necessary.” C #168

Here’s what Jefferson had to say about that:

" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …" TJ / DOI

C added:

“There is no factual evidence of pre-existing rights.” C

Why would there be a word for something that doesn’t exist?
If the word “right” existed before 1776, it’s likely it had a meaning before 1776.

BUT !!

Kings were disinclined to relinquish their sovereignty.
And so it took guns to seal the deal.

[Crane]

Right, as a noun, meant ‘justifiable claim’ in the late 1700s. That would indicate that the subject of the noun would have been acceptable within the cultural norms of the time. Back in Oklahoma we would have said “it’s what Jesus knows”.

Crane

[standingwave]

I think of rights as what we “negotiate” from our rulers/government, all the way back to the Magna Carta. All this talk about inalienable rights is just so much flowery mumbo jumbo. Because what does inalienable mean? It means “unable to be taken away.” Well, we know that isn’t true:

As George Carlin pointed out so succinctly: “Now if you think you do have rights, one last assignment for you. Next time you’re at the computer, get on the Internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, I want you to type in “Japanese Americans 1942” and you’ll find out all about your precious f—ing rights, Okay? All right. You know about it. In 1942, there were 110,000 Japanese American citizens in good standing, law-abiding people who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That’s all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had: “Right this way” into the internment camps! Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away! And rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges.”

[Crane]

Those of us who have been drafted know that citizens are ultimately the property of the government.

Rights are only and always a function of government.

Crane

[sear]

“I think of rights as what we “negotiate” from our rulers/government” sw #171

I don’t think the dictionary says that.

BUT !!

That only makes your s a v v y observation all the more insightful, as C #172 corroborates.
Whether a book says so or not, in practice, I think you’ve smashed the nail directly on the head here sw.

And the sanity check that you’re right is experience in international travel.

Switzerland for example might seem like a nice, safe, clean, comfortable place to visit.
Take a closer look.
They’ve got nutty laws there about keeping quiet after midnight, etc; standards that might be laughed out of town in NYC.
In Amsterdam you can fire up a doobie.
But in “the land of the free, and the home of the brave” they can put you in a metal cage for that; as many can attest.

Thanks sw. I appreciate your constructive insight.

“You don’t need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. These [President Bush (the younger) appointees and sympathizers] people went to the same universities and fraternities, they’re on the same boards of directors, they’re in the same country clubs, they have like interests. They don’t need to call a meeting, they know what’s good for them, and they’re getting it.
There used to be 7 oil companies, now there are 3, it will soon be 2. The things that matter in this country have been reduced in choice. There are 2 political parties, there are a hand full of insurance companies, there are about 6 or 7 information companies. But if you want a bagel there are 23 flavors because you have the illusion, you have the illusion of choice. You don’t get the real important choices, there’s no freedom of choice.” George Carlin

[Czarcasm]

@sear

“You don’t need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. These [President Bush (the younger) appointees and sympathizers] people went to the same universities and fraternities, they’re on the same boards of directors, they’re in the same country clubs, they have like interests. They don’t need to call a meeting, they know what’s good for them, and they’re getting it.
There used to be 7 oil companies, now there are 3, it will soon be 2. The things that matter in this country have been reduced in choice. There are 2 political parties, there are a hand full of insurance companies, there are about 6 or 7 information companies. But if you want a bagel there are 23 flavors because you have the illusion, you have the illusion of choice. You don’t get the real important choices, there’s no freedom of choice.” George Carlin

Where/when did he say this? I’m not finding any cites(except for other times you’ve provided this quote).

[Shodan]

Cite, if it matters.

I remember when George Carlin was trying to be funny and succeeding, instead of trying to be profound and failing.

Regards,
Shodan

[sear]

“Where/when did he say this? I’m not finding any cites(except for other times you’ve provided this quote).” C #174

Thanks for asking.
I’m not certain.
But most likely, it was as a guest on Bill Maher’s network TV show Politically Incorrect.

[sear]

S #175

Thanks S.
I can easily understand why Carlin would be controversial.

In my opinion, of all the king’s court,
the most s a v v y counselor of all was the court jester.
The court jester had to:

• read the mood of the room
• not impede with disruption, but augment with keen, perhaps didactic insight
• without pi$$ing his majesty off, and losing his head.

Many think of Carlin as a comedian.
But contrary to your opinion, even if in this case you are right, in my experience Carlin’s broader profile was as a philosopher, and I believe he’s revered for it.

[Shodan]

@sear

According to the 9th Amendment, if it was legal, a right on Dec. 15, 1791 it should be legal & a right today, unless otherwise specified.

Actually the Ninth Amendment says pretty much the opposite of this.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bone]

@Crane

There is no factual evidence of pre-existing rights.

That’s interesting and all, but entirely irrelevant. Here is what you said:

@Crane

The fact is that all of our rights were created by the Constitution, are defined by our courts and are protected by our government. This fact can be readily confirmed by independent investigators.

(my bold)
This part, that’s wrong. As in, you are stating something as a fact that is actually false. Your understanding of constitutional jurisprudence is in error. All of our rights were not *created *by the Constitution. Whether you believe in natural rights, or whether natural rights do in fact exist is not the point - the point is that the Constitution recognizes these natural rights, as does the history of 2nd amendment jurisprudence. It doesn’t take an independent investigator to confirm this, all it takes is for someone to read the text of the constitution, and/or the relevant SCOTUS decisions.

@standingwave

I think of rights as what we “negotiate” from our rulers/government, all the way back to the Magna Carta. All this talk about inalienable rights is just so much flowery mumbo jumbo. Because what does inalienable mean? It means “unable to be taken away.” Well, we know that isn’t true:

Some rights may be violated, but the fact that they are violated does not mean the right was taken away. I’d suggest not relying on Carlin as your source of information on constitutional jurisprudence.

[Crane]

Bone,

Thanks for the critique. I am sure that your knowledge of jurisprudence far exceeds mine.

The issue under discussion deals with the definition of the term ‘rights’. My Dictionary of Etymology informs me that ‘right’ during the late 1700s referred to a justifiable claim. So, whether codified or not, some claims were simply norms of the late 1700s culture. Those norms are reflected in contemporary writings as ‘natural’. Nothing mystical, simply claims that were assumed to be justified in the context of their time.

If the history of jurisprudence has added a mystical aura to ‘rights’ causing them to be natural or somehow divine, we have a problem. The Constitution itself becomes an immutable, religious document. That’s dangerous.

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’.

Independent observers cannot confirm that some divine or natural process has been active in defining and preserving our rights. The concept is therefore not a ‘fact’ in the sense that we accept today. I am open to being proven wrong.

The Founders were required to give homage to the religious beliefs of the time. Even the emerging discipline of science was required to accommodate the flood myth for another half century. So, we should not distort our view of the Constitution to conform with a few rhetorical flourishes.

Our rights were created by, and are only protected by, the Constitution of the United States.

Crane