Common sense question regarding gun control

Abatis said:
Different subjects??? It goes to the core of what an "absolute right" is. Our disagreement is that we are using differing definitions for the term "absolute". I strive to employ terms as they were understood by the founders / framers

To me, "absolute right" means that NO limit or restriction is justified (or possible) for any reason; this concept goes back to Locke. To me, the only circumstance where one has an absolute right to do anything is when one is living in a state of nature and no semblance of governance is upon him. Under Locke, when one decides to enter into a society, certain aspects of all rights are surrendered to create the social compact. This is evident because even the most exemplary un/inalienable rights (life, liberty, property) are subject to removal by government (imprisonment, death penalty, the taking of private property for public use).

You seem to acknowledge that some limits on the use of guns is justifiable and even legitimate thus you seem to recognize that the right to arms isn't really "absolute". Your use of the term seems to be sophistic and not a true point of argument solidly grounded in the principle of what an "absolute right" is.

Now, this isn't to say that I believe that the federal government possesses any express power to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen because when it comes down to it, I am a unyielding "conferred powers / retained rights" believer.

That of course is an "original state" situation but in reality I recognize that we have had 227 years of mission creep for the Constitution resulting in the expansion of federal powers, nurtured and cultivated by the Courts.

The tenet that government is restrained by a general liberty concept, that it only can legitimately exercise the powers granted to it, has been lost (or as I agree with you, abdicated by the citizenry).

In a post Slaughterhouse Cases nation (a 1873 SCOTUS decision that gutted the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment) we must wait to be harmed by government action before we can challenge enacted law (instead of having that general liberty principle binding Congress before it acts). This has reduced us to claiming specific injuries from specific government actions under "due process" so we are stuck with citing the 2nd Amendment as the guarantee of gun rights.

With that comes the baggage of the intent of the Amendment; the "why" framers and the states and the people demanded that the --original, fundamental, pre-existing, not a single aspect of it ever surrendered to government-- right to arms, be held immune from the powers granted to the federal government.

So, Courts have examined the 'object' of the Amendment. That object was primarily to ensure the continuation of the general militia concept so that both the states and he federal government would have a ready pool of properly equipped citizens to call up at a moments notice to aid the civil authority in a time of need.

This is where we get the primary protection sphere of the Amendment. The 2nd Amendment protects the types of arms that are useful to a citizen militia and that can be effectively used by the citizens in the types of engagements that a general, citizen militia are expected to face if called. This "protection" places limits on the right and there is no way to avoid that (without rescinding our consent to be governed).

I do not find the protection sphere established by SCOTUS to be objectionable. Under it, modern military style semi-auto's are protected and a wide swath of existing federal, state and local gun control can and should be invalidated by applying it.

That's where we should be applying our efforts, arguing from and working in the system we have, not arguing concepts that never were and never will be.

The right to arms can not be said to be "absolute" in theory or practice.
Click to expand...

the 'social compact' has no mention at all in the constitution or bill of rights, so kindly detail where it says we abrogate our absolute rights by living in society.
 
Abatis said:
The power for anyone anywhere to call up the citizens, organize them, train them and deploy them as militia has been extinguished by Congress.

That's not a problem for the private citizens though, because the right to arms has never been dependent upon the existence of the organized militia.
Click to expand...

xb33c.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 12472245_965825580139138_2324473516352817823_n.jpg
    12472245_965825580139138_2324473516352817823_n.jpg
    67.1 KB · Views: 1
SmarterthanYou said:
the 'social compact' has no mention at all in the constitution or bill of rights, so kindly detail where it says we abrogate our absolute rights by living in society.
Click to expand...

Social Contract theory is the basis for things like Consent of the Governed. It's the rejection of the Divine Right of Kings and the basis for any State at all.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
here's one of them. If you can't be trusted with a weapon, you can't be trusted without a custodian.
Click to expand...

Mmmkay . . .

SmarterthanYou said:
the 'social compact' has no mention at all in the constitution or bill of rights, so kindly detail where it says we abrogate our absolute rights by living in society.
Click to expand...

I guess your ignorance of the foundational principles of the Constitution explains why you have such a warped opinion about the nature of our rights.

One might think that the 5th and 8th Amendments addressing the constitutionally legitimate use of government force to harm the rights to life, liberty and property didn't exist!

Whodathunk!
 
SmarterthanYou said:
those numerous court cases CLEARLY state that use of public roadways and private vehicles is a fundamental right of travel.
Click to expand...


Only under all the restrictions and regulations that they have enacted.....Of course you have a right to use the roadways If you obey the regulations....keep in mind, there are some roadways you aren't even allowed to walk on if they say so....

I was talking about driving in your own back yard....and failed to say those regulations are state specific....in most cases you can be 10 years and drive in your back yard without interference.
but lets not beat a dead horse....the whole topic is of no consequence....
 
Abatis said:
Mmmkay . . .



I guess your ignorance of the foundational principles of the Constitution explains why you have such a warped opinion about the nature of our rights.

One might think that the 5th and 8th Amendments addressing the constitutionally legitimate use of government force to harm the rights to life, liberty and property didn't exist!

Whodathunk!
Click to expand...

then you shouldn't have a difficult time producing said social contract and it's terms that WE THE PEOPLE agreed to upon the ratification of the constitution or bill of rights, correct?
 
NOVA said:
Only under all the restrictions and regulations that they have enacted.....Of course you have a right to use the roadways If you obey the regulations....keep in mind, there are some roadways you aren't even allowed to walk on if they say so....
Click to expand...
those regulations pertain to things like speed limits, number of lanes, traffic direction, etc. not who can and cannot travel on the public roadways unless they obtain permission from the government first.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
then you shouldn't have a difficult time producing said social contract and it's terms that WE THE PEOPLE agreed to upon the ratification of the constitution or bill of rights, correct?
Click to expand...
STY, I love you man, but you're way off base here. The very establishment of the Constitution is a Social Contract. The Government being established in any form is Social Contract. "That to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men...".
 
Hulagu Khan said:
STY, I love you man, but you're way off base here. The very establishment of the Constitution is a Social Contract. The Government being established in any form is Social Contract. "That to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men...".
Click to expand...

the very establishment of the constitution and the bill of rights was to limit the government, not the people. for anyone to tell me that I need to surrender some of my rights because I live in society needs to show me where that is actually written in words that are as clear as the constitution.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
then you shouldn't have a difficult time producing said social contract and it's terms that WE THE PEOPLE agreed to upon the ratification of the constitution or bill of rights, correct?
Click to expand...

SmarterthanYou said:
the very establishment of the constitution and the bill of rights was to limit the government, not the people. for anyone to tell me that I need to surrender some of my rights because I live in society needs to show me where that is actually written in words that are as clear as the constitution.
Click to expand...

Does a right being deemed "unalienable" mean anything to you?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the very establishment of the constitution and the bill of rights was to limit the government, not the people. for anyone to tell me that I need to surrender some of my rights because I live in society needs to show me where that is actually written in words that are as clear as the constitution.
Click to expand...

By giving government power at all comes with a reduction of our rights. That's why I said Power is the antithesis of Liberty. I mean, you accept that police have the legitimate power to arrest you (theoretically speaking), but that comes at the cost of giving up some self agency.
 
christiefan915 said:
Are you trying to put words in my mouth?
Click to expand...

Not at all. you're a useless pussy who doesn't stand behind what you said. The concussions are adding up, aren't they, ho? Oh, wait, who is coming to the aid of the damsel in distress who needs to be defended by a man?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the very establishment of the constitution and the bill of rights was to limit the government, not the people. for anyone to tell me that I need to surrender some of my rights because I live in society needs to show me where that is actually written in words that are as clear as the constitution.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't understand the rules for when we can and can't say "thanks," but I was trying to
 
Leonthecat said:
Swine.
Click to expand...

OK, here's an offer. And whether you accept or not is irreverent. It shall be.

I will for the moment treat you as a lady. What will happen in return is you will actually address my point. There has so far been a lot of dress and zero add in that equation. As long as you actually address my points I will go back to being polite. When you don't, you have no excuse. I'd ask if we have a deal, but I'm not asking for a deal. That's what it is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top