McDonald ET AL., v. City of Chicago SCOTUS ruling in favor of 2nd...Woo Hoo

[eas7888]

Words...

Helo, I believe you're skirting around the issue that others are mentioning. m26 and Seafort are pointing out that these rights are inherent, and regardless of whether or not the government acknowledges these rights, they still exist. Here's an analogy to simplify the situation. Oxygen exists in our atmosphere. If the government of country X were to suddenly tell its people that oxygen no longer exists in the atmosphere, would it still be there? The question is rhetorical, of course, as we all know the oxygen would still be there. Now, shifting to basic human rights, such as the right to self defense. Just because a government does not acknowledge the right of self defense, does not mean it is non-existent. What it means, is that the government is wrongly attempting to deny its citizens of those rights.

 

[ryan1234]

Call me a realist or whatever you want, but when it comes right down to it, governments do what is in their best interest and if it means trampling basic human rights because it's convenient, then they'll do it.
Unless there is a body of laws and a judiciary enforcing them, then basic human rights do not exist in the real world.

Ok, I'm pretty sure I agree with what you're saying.. but I'm having a hard time with some of the verbage... Does this sound about right?:

Governments have an intrinsic propensity to do whatever is in their best interest, whether it be good or bad - governments tend to sway towards tyranny and control, regardless of how they are set up.

Founding Fathers believed human rights are just that, human rights.. irregardless of nationality -
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, or rest on inferences
- TJ to Madison

people of a particular nationality are responsible for taking measures to guard those rights, those measures include setting up laws that protect those people from government oppression and control of those rights.

The nature of governments is that it will always degrade those rights unless there is something to stop them. Bottom Line... without a Bill of Rights, the people ultimately, effectively... realistically, surrender their rights to the government.

 

[m26]

Please provide me the quote where I said we could prosecute practicing Muslims or refrain from putting words in my mouth.

I did not mean to suggest that you said such a thing, but I do think it is the logical consequence of your premise.

All I said was that the rights that the founding fathers believed are fundemental needed to be included in the Constitution to ensure they were codifed and then protected.

I agree that they need constitutional protection. I agree with everything you've said to that effect. This is what I object to:

We have these rights because they are codified in our law.

My position is that we can freely exercise these rights because they are codified in our law. The constitution provides protection, but it isn't the source of the right itself. The law protects our rights; it doesn't create them.

 

[nittany03]

The constitution provides protection, but it isn't the source of the right itself. The law protects our rights; it doesn't create them.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 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. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

The wording of our own Declaration of Independence seems to scare the crap out of some people, it seems. No, I'm not implying that the government needs to be overthrown. Far from it. But note the relationship posited between rights, God (or one's existence as a human if you don't believe in Him), and the source of the State's power. Everyone agrees that certain rights need Constitutional protection. But the idea that such rights are granted by a piece of paper or by a government is contrary to the Founders' viewpoint and, in my opinion, dangerous. That is the idea that the Founding Fathers fought a six-year war to escape from.

Put it this way. A religious person believes in Deity, of some form or another according to their religion. They also believe that God has revealed the Way, if you will, through the Bible, Qur'an, Vedas, or whatever. But the same person would consider it blasphemy to suggest that God exists purely because someone wrote the Bible, or that God's existence is limited by the text of their particular scripture. Indeed, that person would probably argue that it was the existence of God which caused their holy book to come into existence. On a political front rather than a religious one, our Founders believed that people's possessing certain inalienable rights as a consequence of their mere existence necessitated the writing of a document limiting the Government's power to abridge those rights.

The fact that certain rights are spelled out does not mean those are the only rights we have. Oh, I think someone said something about that, now that I think about it.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[Flash]

If you use quotes that someone supposedly said you may want to fact-check them first.

Flash. sure do. Shall we begin with Thomas Jefferson, my personal favorite Founder:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Strike one.

Strongest, but not the only, which leads us to this one:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (Here, Jefferson was quoting Cesare Beccaria because he agreed with him.)

Ball. He quoted the passage in a book and only commented "False idee di utilità" which translated is "False ideas of utilities". The book was the Legal Commonplace Book which was used as a reference guide and does not mean he agreed with the quote.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." As stated, the right is inherent, the 2nd Amendment, like the other amendments, just make it clear to future administrations that they cannot abridge this inherent right, and the people stand ready in case it is abridged.

Strike two. The modern English is a dead giveaway. Want to go for strike three?

While the writings, speeches, letters and musings of our Founding Fathers are a valuable tool in understanding how they thought it is not the be all, end all that many seem to imply when they quote them. You can find many passages from a variety of them that will support one modern political train of thought or another, in researching your 'quotes' I found one from George Washington in his first annual address to Congress saying "A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.", which certainly implies to me that he thought the organized militia part was awfully important.

What is most important however was what they wrote when they put pen to paper on the actual Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights, those are the words that matter. To me what they meant with the Second Amendment is open to interpretation with both sides of the debate having valid points. Using bogus and misrepresented quotes only undercuts your arguments.

 

[Seafort]

Flash, I stand corrected on the quotes. I had no reason to believe the quotes that I had written down were misattributions, and I mentioned them in good faith. I'm an amateur historian at best, and certainly no legal scholar. Neither history nor law are my areas of expertise, and I recognise an admit mistakes when I make them.

Now if you want to talk Philosphy of Religion or English Literature (in those subjects, I am a published scholar), then I can rattle citations off the top of my head when making points...

That being said, the point is, I am not a strict-constructionist. I believe that what the founders intended is just as important as what is actually written down, and the need to weigh that against significant changes in society, as the Constitution was intended to be a living document. What interpretation of the Constitution should do is never restrict rights; it should extend rights.

If you asked the Founders whether they expected to be able to keep a firearm in their house, I would bet you some amount of money, probably significant, that they would as a whole or as a majority, say yes. We know from historical accounts, ones that are genuine, that they had such arms (the aforementioned rifles above the mantles).

If you asked them if African-Americans or women deserved the vote... That they may very well have said no to.

What's the difference?

Restricting the right to bear arms? Contrary to the Constitution and the inherent rights of the People. Extending protection of rights to "3/5th of other persons" (African-Americans), women, those without land, and those age 18 or above? Took an Amendment in each case because they were contrary to the Constitution, but in line with the inherent rights of the People.

Even the Founders were not always right about inherent rights. Doesn't mean the rights didn't exist for women and African-Americans in 1776. Just that they weren't respected or protected.

Since I'm not being graded on my grasp of Constitutional law, and I live in rural Japan (I don't live in Kyoto City proper), and don't have physical access to a library with English history books, it would be difficult to do enough research to turn out an essay that clearly explains my points. Even if I had access to databases, such as EBSCO, it would be difficult if I could not get the full text of the articles and papers. And I'm not going to bother my parents (professional librarians, with access) to email me a considerable bulk of information towards this goal.

tl;dr I made a mistake, it was in good faith, doesn't change what I was trying to say.

 

[nittany03]

The bottom line (BLUF? ) for those who have not read the philosophers on which the founders based our system of government: my right to swing my fist stops where your nose begins, not before.

If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind.

The end of Law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge Freedom.

The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.

Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.

 

[eas7888]

The bottom line (BLUF? ) for those who have not read the philosophers on which the founders based our system of government: my right to swing my fist stops where your nose begins, not before.

The problem with philosophers is that for every one you find that says "X" there is always one that says the opposite.

 

[Seafort]

True, we do tend to be a very discordant bunch, do we not?

While I agree with the quotes posted, and have studied Philosophy of Government (though not nearly as much as of Religion), the issue with the swinging arm argument is that threatening with intent to harm is not an inherent right. I don't have the right to point a gun at you if you've done nothing to warrant it. My right to self-defense does not extend to bullying others before they bully me. In that case, swinging your arm in a manner which is threatening, even if you do not complete the punch, may indeed be a violation of the other person's civil rights.

 

[A4sForever]

I ... have studied Philosophy of Government (though not nearly as much as of Religion).... yadda, yadda, yadda ...

O.K. ... we get it ... and you're getting tiresome, if you want to know the truth. All of your sentences are rich w/ 'I' and 'my'.

You're a liberal who has never been mugged. As such, you don't 'like' guns much ... and yet -- *drum roll* -- you want to join the military. What do you want to be when you grow up and become a little soldier or sailor, Johnny -- a teacher of JHS Engrish (sic) in Japan???

Personally, I think you're full of shit and clueless about guns, the 2nd Amendment, and the military. After reading all your posts on this subject, I just really wanted to tell you that. I'm constantly amazed at how much the clueless generation thinks it knows virtually everything about virtually anything and yet they know nothing about life & how it works.

When you do get some experience, get mugged and/or get religion about 'guns' and the right of self defense -- come back ... come back and tell us how much you know.

 

[eas7888]

O.K. ... we get it ... and you're getting tiresome, if you want to know the truth. All of your sentences are rich w/ 'I' and 'my'.

You're a liberal who has never been mugged. As such, you don't 'like' guns much ... and yet -- *drum roll* -- you want to join the military. What do you want to be when you become a little soldier or sailor -- a teacher of JHS Engrish (sic) in Japan???

Personally, I think you're full of shit and clueless about guns, the 2nd Amendment, and the military. I'm constantly amazed at how much the clueless generation thinks it knows ... about virtually anything and everything.

When you do get some experience, get mugged and/or get religion about 'guns' and the right of self defense -- come back ... come back and tell us how much you know.

</Old Man Rant>

Don't know if it's been brought up before ... In Iraq, every household is allowed one AK-47 per adult male in the house. Though limited, they're allowed to have fully automatic weapons in their house. Beats the hell out of the NFA.

 

[A4sForever]

</Old Man Rant>

If you REALLY think so ... then you're clueless, as well ...

It's called 'experience'.

 

[eas7888]

If you REALLY think so ... then you're clueless, as well ...

It's called 'experience'.

Naw, I was just trying to lighten the situation, hence the smiley.

Personally and politically, I'm a Libertarian. I believe that the government's role in the day to day life of the individual should be quite limited. I'm not a philosopher or a lawyer, and I won't pretend to be a politician. I'll leave the specifics up to those persons to debate.

 

[A4sForever]

Naw, I was just trying to lighten the situation, hence the smiley.....

O.K. ... I just have no time for people who know or have done squat pontificating about how the world works ... like we care what they think .... ... there's a 'smiley' for you.

...Personally and politically, I'm a Libertarian. I believe that the government's role in the day to day life of the individual should be quite limited.....

Likewise -- unfortunately, it won't win national elections -- at least not in our lifetime.

Sooooooooooo ... lacking a 'winning proposition' ... you've got to take a side. It may not be your (or my) first choice ... but if you're going to have a voice -- you've got to pick a side.

Just like on the playground ... two sides ... no room for a third 'team' .....

 

[eas7888]

Likewise -- unfortunately, it won't win national elections -- at least not in our lifetime

Sadly, I agree with you on this one. As my drill sergeant told my platoon in basic training: "Common sense isn't common." If individuals in our nation had any common sense, the scope of the second amendment, would never be in question.

Just like on the playground ... two sides ... no room for a third 'team' .....

It seems like the United States is one of the few places where this is true. Many other nations have multiple political parties that are able to function together. Reference my above statement about common sense. Unfortunately having three choices might be one too many.

In recent years, it seems to me that the Republican party has been less about small government and individual rights/liberties, and more about religious fundamentalism. The 'Neo-Con' movement isn't really my cup of tea, but all to often I find myself voting for the lesser of two evils.

There was a South Park episode on a few years ago (2004) that poked fun at the choices people face in elections. The choice was between (literally) a giant douhe and a turd sandwich. This is how I've felt lately in many elections.

Okay, It's 1:40 AM and I'm beginning to lose the ability to create rational thoughts.

eas7888 - Out.