To be generous, one could include these things as a form of “might” that outweighs brute force in some cases. In the same sense that “the pen is mightier than the sword”.
Yes, I think this is a key part of it. If we decide that in the year XXXX they figured rights out completely and all we can do is wallow in their glory, it is tough to have productive conversations about where society should go in the future.
Sort of like talking space exploration with the Amish.
To focus on this point for a moment.
If we grant that this is true, isn’t it also possible that we don’t necessarily know what the natural rights are yet?
It is entirely possible (in fact, very likely) that an medieval Irish monk, an 18th century American aristocrat, a 13th century Mongol governor, and you would all use what you consider logic and reason to arrive at completely different sets of rights.
As society changes, people using logic and reason to puzzle out what should be a “natural right” may come to different conclusions. How do we know who is right?
Right. For example, by definition property rights involve taking away someone else’s rights. If your right to property means you get to put walls around your bedroom, you are hampering my right to free movement.
Now, we as a society may decide that this is acceptable and even desirable, but you cannot claim that your property rights have no cost just because you consider it right and proper that you have those property rights.
Rights are artificial constructs of political systems. The test of a ‘right’ is the degree to which it supports the goals of the system’s creation document (myth, council…). In the United States the goals of the Constitution are clearly stated in the preamble - “In Order to…”.
So, in the case of the second amendment promoting citizen ownership of military style weapons - does such a right:
insure domestic tranquility?
promote the general welfare?
provide for the common defense?
The answer is clearly no.
The same test applied to states maintaining well regulated militias, yields the answer of yes.
As for where the 2nd Amendment came from: it was originally and specifically intended to allow civilization outposts and settlements to form militias in order to hunt down and murder any pesky Indians who had the temerity to insist on exercising their freedom to hunt and exist and who weren’t crazy about white people taking the land they had lived on for thousands of years. The interpretation of that amendment has since been deliberately perverted for the benefit of profiteers.
Only if you define “Creator” broadly enough to mean “whatever caused us to come into existence.” A “natural” right would be one that a person has naturally, just by virtue of existing as a person.
The Declaration of Independence speaks of people being “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”; but Jefferson’s original draft said “all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable,” with no mention of a capital-C Creator.
However, belief in natural rights (not man-made) is probably incompatible with a purely materialistic worldview, in which things like morals, ethics, ideals, and values can only exist as human constructs.
I would disagree with that third item. I doubt any of the people who wrote or enacted the Bill of Rights in 1791 associated guns with personal self-defense. Guns back then were too awkward to make a good self-defense weapon. If you were accosted by a criminal, you’d want to have a sword handy to defend yourself.
Guns were a military weapon. My understanding is that some parts of America were worried that the federal government might not act in cases of regional problems like Indian attacks in the west or slave uprisings in the south. So the people in these regions wanted to have the right to form their own local armed militia companies.
I will grant that the meaning of the Second Amendment has evolved to cover the issue of personal self-defense as advances in forearm technology has made that a realistic option. But I’ll note that many of the people who most vigorously support the Second Amendment also claim to support originalism and reject the notion of evolving meanings in the Constitution.
As for the central topic of where do rights come from, I feel they come from society. People collectively decide what rights are important to them and then create a government which protects those rights.
Rights are not bestowed by God or Natural Law or some other source outside of people. Individuals cannot legitimately grant rights to themselves; legitimate rights must arise by a collective decision. And government only gives rights to the extent that the government is a tool used by the people who are receiving those rights. So people give rights to people.
Which may be why the second amendment says absolutely nothing about guns.
I’m totally there for the thread in which we devise a new constitution.
I won’t hijack this thread so here’s my final comment about it in this one: when we did this at another board the effort unraveled when we couldn’t come to an agreement about universal suffrage, of all things.
Logical arguments can be evaluated by generally accepted rules as valid or invalid. When you trace a valid set of arguments back to first principles, you then need to evaluate those first principles by some measure of reasonableness. Faith-based first principles fail this reasonableness test, faith being different from reason.
It’s not an easy process, but it is worth doing thoroughly and rigorously.
Good luck being the person that argues that a right to keep and bear arms does not include guns.
The First Amendment is generally not interpreted to protect libel, threats, the right to burn witches, or genuine riots. The enumerated rights are not intractable/absolute. Except, maybe, 3A.
So are you actually arguing that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to guns?
No constitutional right is without limitation. None are absolute.
Even free speech. Even guns.
If you read the constitution it never once mentions guns. It says “arms”. By definition “arms” is inclusive of many more weapons than just guns. Many of those weapons are restricted/banned from private ownership.
The reality is the government has already massively infringed on your 2nd amendment rights. All they let you have now are some guns (and not even all of them).
l am not actually arguing that it does not apply to guns, just that its limits should be interpreted in the context of the Preamble, most notably “… insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity …”. When the strictest interpretation of 2A conflicts with the values expressed in the Preamble, which has never been amended in any way, the conflict should probably resolve primarily in favor of the Preamble.
It has been a long time so I cannot find the link to it but IIRC it was noted that the preamble has no legal force whatsoever.
It’s nice, flowery language but not law.
It expresses intent.
I agree.
But, from numerous discussions around here the law doesn’t care.
You can go to the Supreme Court and tell them that the FFs said, “All men are created equal” and that will get you nowhere (as so much of our past shows).
(Yes, I know that was the Declaration of Independence…going to intent)