Constitutional Rights

[michaeledward]

When browsing threads, I rarely notice in which forum the topic is listed. I see the title of the thread and if it looks interesting, I post.

One theme that I have recurred here.

'gun owners' have often made the claim that it is the Second Amendment that makes the others possible ... and yet, the other Amendments have been abused, curtailed, infringed, and broken ... and we hear nothing about that from the 'gun owners'.

Are the gun-owners 'one-issue' citizens?

 

[Cruentus]

When browsing threads, I rarely notice in which forum the topic is listed. I see the title of the thread and if it looks interesting, I post.

One theme that I have recurred here.

'gun owners' have often made the claim that it is the Second Amendment that makes the others possible ... and yet, the other Amendments have been abused, curtailed, infringed, and broken ... and we hear nothing about that from the 'gun owners'.

Are the gun-owners 'one-issue' citizens?

A lot of them are, very much like Prolife/Prochoicers.

My wifes Grandma is very pro-life, and is a one issue voter. She explains, "If the canidate doesn't respect life, then I can't vote for them." To her, she believes that abortion is taking a life. So, for a canidate to be pro choice, she believes that person is not choosing to respect life, and respecting life is her most basic principle of which everything else falls under.

I, of course, believe that this is very 1-dimensional, and we know that pro-choice doesn't have to mean pro-abortion, so need to debate her position. I am using this as an analogy because it is fitting for understanding the "one issue voter."

Like my grandma and abortion, many gun owners believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental principle in which other principles fall under. Many believe that the right to bear arms is the same as granting someone the right to the means of self-defense, and the right to defend oneself and ones community. Many believe that all individual freedoms stem from the freedom of self-protection. For people who think along these lines, 2nd amendment rights become the single issue in which all other issues fall under.

So yes, some gun owners are 1 issue voters. I, as well as most others, are not. Never-the-less, I still warrent 2nd amendment rights as very important and fundamental (though not singular).

 

[Big Don]

When browsing threads, I rarely notice in which forum the topic is listed. I see the title of the thread and if it looks interesting, I post.

One theme that I have recurred here.

'gun owners' have often made the claim that it is the Second Amendment that makes the others possible ... and yet, the other Amendments have been abused, curtailed, infringed, and broken ... and we hear nothing about that from the 'gun owners'.

Are the gun-owners 'one-issue' citizens?

So, are you saying it has gone far enough and gun owners should stage an armed insurrection? Because, that is the reason for the second amendment.

 

[michaeledward]

So, are you saying it has gone far enough and gun owners should stage an armed insurrection? Because, that is the reason for the second amendment.

I have heard people who are vocal defenders of the Second Amendment intimate that they would do so.

How does that bumper sticker read? "You can have my gun when you take it from my cold dead hands."

What does that mean, really?

Oh, I don't give a **** about free press, and you can practice any version of Protestant Christianity you wish, and those who break the law are obviously guilty, so lock 'em up and keep 'em locked up, unless you're just going to execute them, which is probably a better idea anyhow, and you know what, else, as long as I can buy 17 hand guns at once, I really don't care if the government is the only source for information about what is happening in the world, because, a government that will let me keep my weapons, obviously wouldn't have any other agenda, and what's the big deal about Uncle Sam listening in on the phone calls of bad guys, anyway?
​

I am not encouraging a revoltion ~ even if a little revolution is good every now, and again ~ I am just pointing out that those who say they get sick thinking about what could happen to gun rights have similarly claimed their right to keep and bear arms is the one thing that guaranteed the other nine amendments to the Constitution.

Except, not so much.

 

[thardey]

I have heard people who are vocal defenders of the Second Amendment intimate that they would do so.

How does that bumper sticker read? "You can have my gun when you take it from my cold dead hands."

What does that mean, really?

Oh, I don't give a **** about free press, and you can practice any version of Protestant Christianity you wish, and those who break the law are obviously guilty, so lock 'em up and keep 'em locked up, unless you're just going to execute them, which is probably a better idea anyhow, and you know what, else, as long as I can buy 17 hand guns at once, I really don't care if the government is the only source for information about what is happening in the world, because, a government that will let me keep my weapons, obviously wouldn't have any other agenda, and what's the big deal about Uncle Sam listening in on the phone calls of bad guys, anyway?
​

I am not encouraging a revoltion ~ even if a little revolution is good every now, and again ~ I am just pointing out that those who say they get sick thinking about what could happen to gun rights have similarly claimed their right to keep and bear arms is the one thing that guaranteed the other nine amendments to the Constitution.

Except, not so much.

"Remember, Remember, the 5th of November . . . ."


The loss of the 2nd amendment is not enough cause for revolution, the loss of the rest of the Bill of Rights . . . well, that could do it.

The problem I see, and this conversation helped me to see it more clearly, is that the polarization of the rights falls, not along party lines, but along two lines of thinking:

A.) If we lose our rights, we won't have any way to get them back/protect them without our guns.

B.) If we spend as much time protecting our "other" rights, we won't need our guns, because we won't need a revolution.

But the whole government was built (IMO) on the idea that people in power are not trustworthy, so checks and balances have to be set.

The 2nd Amendment is one of the checks to protect the other amendments. But not the only one. It should be the last resort only. But, like Michael pointed out, (but I may be reading into it) what's the point of having guns if you've given up all the other rights voluntarily?

On the other hand, history has shown that at certain times, diplomatic solutions fail. After that, force, or the threat of force, may be the only option left.

-------

Now I'm going way off into left field, just sort of thinking out loud, so bear with me, or skip this if you want.

Question:
If: You start with the basic idea that the 2nd Amendment was primarily put into place to protect the citizens from the government.

Then: The structure of our law-enforcement system (namely the idea that, citizens are responsible to prevent crime, the government is responsible to punish it), is form of protection for citizens from the government.

Because: If citizens did not have the right to defend themselves, that responsibility would fall on the government's shoulders. In order to prevent crime, many of our other rights would be lost in the name of prevention. We are seeing that now, and throughout our short history as a nation.

Currently is the wire-tapping issue. The argument is that the people rely on the government to prevent terrorist attacks, so some people are willing to relinquish that right to privacy, which is necessary to keep them safe.

Now, take that argument and apply it to a personal level. Would we be willing to allow random searches of our property if we believed that we had no right to defend ourselves, but that the government needed to do so to protect us from robbers and muggers and rapists?

I wouldn't.

So, in keeping our rights to self-defense, (of which a gun is the icon, and the means), we are actually protecting ourselves from the need of the government to violate our rights as Americans. It is not so much that we are using our guns against the government, but in cooperation with it.

It's only a thought I had just now, so it's not a firmly held belief or anything, and I'm sure there are things I haven't taken into account. But I thought I'd throw it out there.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

When browsing threads, I rarely notice in which forum the topic is listed. I see the title of the thread and if it looks interesting, I post.

One theme that I have recurred here.

'gun owners' have often made the claim that it is the Second Amendment that makes the others possible ... and yet, the other Amendments have been abused, curtailed, infringed, and broken ... and we hear nothing about that from the 'gun owners'.

Are the gun-owners 'one-issue' citizens?

In many cases, yes.

As to why this is: I cannot speak for anyone else but myself, and the views are expressed here will be claimed to belong solely to me and no others.

I will begin at the beginning. I begin with the assumption that the right of self-defense exists. There exist many in the world who do not. This entry is not for them.
Also let us cast aside affiliations of this or that political party on the issue and merely look at the issue itself as that is all that interests me and all that is relevant to this entry.
It's very easy to understand my beliefs about this issue once I have explained them to you:

The first point of my central belief system is centered on the premise that every human being has rights. You may, if you wish, say that they come from a god, or from nature, or from written law, as suits your preference, but the underlying premise is that they are THERE, irrespective of their form.

The second point is that whatever the number of rights one possesses, they all stem from the right to EXIST, and to try to preserve that existence. This is simple brain-dead logic; one can neither possess nor exercise ANY rights if one does not exist.
Now , the last time I tried explaining this to someone who was less interested in hearing my view as in ridiculing it, this is the point at which I had this incredibly intelligent person interrupt me with"Yeah, well y'know what? Y'know what?....."
He waited for me to say "what". I thought that was cute....ly retarded.
"Yeah, y'know what? But you just said everybody had the right to exist, so if you shoot 'em that's hypocrisy, so you're just as bad, yeah, so there".
So I will answer that here as well:
No.
It is not "Just as bad, yeah, so there."
Self-defense is NOT the moral equivalent of homicide.
The person defending themselves from death or grievous bodily harm has not made the same decision as the person who has already demonstrated the ability, opportunity and intent to kill him/her.
The concept that both these people should be held to the same standard should be self-evident in its sheer ludicrousness.
How does my belief system tie into this? It ties into this because when a person decides to make an unjustified attempt to remove another person's right to exist( in plain English this is called assaulting or murdering them), that person has chosen to arrogate to themselves a right that they do not possess, and in so doing sacrifices their right to exist that the innocent person who has done NO wrong, and deserves to live, may live.

The third point is that therefore, in order to attempt to preserve one's existence, one must know of, and have available, and have ready, the means to resist attempts to jeopardize one's existence. Learning how to use one's body will only take one so far, and address the threat only to a certain point on the threat range.. Learning weapons driven only by leverage and muscle power will broaden one's area of defense as well, but the fact remains that in the modern era the main and most effective such weapon is the firearm, whether one likes it or not.

Which brings us to the fourth point, and that is that therefore, those who support "gun control" as I define the term, are attempting to impose their will on those of us who do not, in a way that would strip me of the primary modern means of preserving my existence, and therefore, whether they realize it or not, are--for all practical intents and purposes--without even knowing my name, my background, my intent or my need-- trying to kill me, whether this is conscious in their mind or not.

Sometimes a thing really IS "just that simple."

As to whether this is the only right I care about: No. I'm not only pro-Second Amendment, I'm pro the entire Bill Of Rights. All of it. But this perhaps may make it clearer to you as to why I place the gun issue "first among equals" as it were.

As to "left" versus "right"--IMO BOTH sides are a lost cause at this point. So polarized have both sides, and by extension, the lackeys of both sides, become, that whoever wins, we lose. This is apparently our fate, since obviously, far too many Americans are too stupid to reject what the media wants and choose candidates they don't cover.

 

[Cruentus]

I have heard people who are vocal defenders of the Second Amendment intimate that they would do so.

How does that bumper sticker read? "You can have my gun when you take it from my cold dead hands."

What does that mean, really?

Oh, I don't give a **** about free press, and you can practice any version of Protestant Christianity you wish, and those who break the law are obviously guilty, so lock 'em up and keep 'em locked up, unless you're just going to execute them, which is probably a better idea anyhow, and you know what, else, as long as I can buy 17 hand guns at once, I really don't care if the government is the only source for information about what is happening in the world, because, a government that will let me keep my weapons, obviously wouldn't have any other agenda, and what's the big deal about Uncle Sam listening in on the phone calls of bad guys, anyway?
​

I am not encouraging a revoltion ~ even if a little revolution is good every now, and again ~ I am just pointing out that those who say they get sick thinking about what could happen to gun rights have similarly claimed their right to keep and bear arms is the one thing that guaranteed the other nine amendments to the Constitution.

Except, not so much.

It just depends on where peoples line in the sand is.

For some, you pass the patriot act and takes away some civil liberties for those it effects. O.K., that is something we can use our government system and process to change.

But, if you take away the right to self-defense? Some believe that this is where we truly cross into totalitarianism, and where using our government process is no longer effective. For some that line is simply to thick to cross. Because of this logic, 2nd amendment rights come first.

I personally don't think that these things are that black/white which is why I am not a 1 issue voter, but I can't help but agree with the point.

 

[Cruentus]

TO clarify a point:

I am not a 1 issue voter because I realize that the intention of most "anti-gun" people is not to take away the right to self-defense, and the right to exist, even though by taking away your means of self-defense that becomes the end result. So I don't believe that when someone wants a waiting period, that they are trying to take away my right to exist and move towards totalitarianism. I just think that most "anti-gun" folks simply don't understand or don't agree with the reasoning behind the second amendment. I don't think that they are trying to turn us into a police state.

So, I look at other issues as well, even though this is a primary issue for me.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

TO clarify a point:

I am not a 1 issue voter because I realize that the intention of most "anti-gun" people is not to take away the right to self-defense, and the right to exist, even though by taking away your means of self-defense that becomes the end result. So I don't believe that when someone wants a waiting period, that they are trying to take away my right to exist and move towards totalitarianism. I just think that most "anti-gun" folks simply don't understand or don't agree with the reasoning behind the second amendment. I don't think that they are trying to turn us into a police state.

So, I look at other issues as well, even though this is a primary issue for me.

I must also clarify a point: In my earlier post, I was speaking not only of anti gunners intent but also of the unintended consequences of what they *think* they're asking for. And we all know what the road to hell is paved with, don't we.

 

[michaeledward]

In many cases, yes.

As to why this is: I cannot speak for anyone else but myself, and the views are expressed here will be claimed to belong solely to me and no others.

I will begin at the beginning. I begin with the assumption that the right of self-defense exists. There exist many in the world who do not. This entry is not for them.
. . . . .

First --- before I read any further ... please put some skin and bones on this straw man.

Who does not believe there is a right to self-defense?

Based upon what statement or actions are you basing your interpretation of your beliefs?

 

[Andy Moynihan]

First --- before I read any further ... please put some skin and bones on this straw man.

Who does not believe there is a right to self-defense?

The UN, for one:


http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_hr_report_2006.pdf


Quote:20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.

That was the quote I drew upon at the time I first wrote that entry. Doesn't qualify to me as a "straw man", though I realize you may disagree. But there's your answer.

 

[michaeledward]

I wasn't aware that the United Nations had the right to vote, or the ability write legislation for the United States of America.


Please describe the difference is between the two descriptions.

A) - A right
B) - A means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another

I am not certain I see a tactical difference.

 

[Cruentus]

I don't think it is so much that people don't believe that self-defense is not a right, I think it is more so the case that (a) people don't see the connection between self-defense and the 2nd amendment. Also, (b) people don't always agree on how far self-defense extends.

I'll explain further:

(a) People don't see that the right to bear arms is inherently necessary to the preservation of the right to self-defense. The reason is because for someone to exercise a right, they have to be allowed the means to do so. I couldn't tell someone that they have the right to free speech while taping their mouth shut and removing all means of allowing that persons views to be heard. The same is true with self-defense. The only thing that will reasonably equalize the threat of a weapon is a firearm. The only thing that will allow a physically weaker person (like an elderly or handicapped person, lets say) to defend against a lethal threat is a firearm. And as it applies to governmental tyranny, the only thing that would reasonably allow us to fight back if (heaven forbid) we had a tyrannical ruler (from our country or an invading one) would be firearms.

Because of the reasons above, bearing arms is an absolute necessity for preserving our right to self-defense, and our right to self-defense is an absolute necessity for preserving our right to exist. Doing things to infringe on our right to bear arms is directly proportional to not respecting our liberties and freedoms of self-defense, and our freedoms to exist and pursue life, liberty, and happiness as a whole.

Although I realize that some just don't agree with the above, I believe that unfortunatily, most "anti-gun" people simply don't see the connections I just made above. I blame the politicians for this, mostly. They have a wonderful opportunity to talk about this, and really show that they are standing up for our freedoms when this issue comes up. But instead, the politicize the issue for one, and for two they only talk about recreational shooting, and how they're hunters too, and so forth. They don't have the balls to talk about the elephant in the room; that elephant being that the 2nd amendment isn't really about hunting, but it is about preserving the right to self-defense.

(b) People don't agree with how far this right to self-defense extends. What you have is 2 conflicting social standpoints. For the sake of simplicity, I'll put a label on the 2 "camps." I will try to explain these without putting a negative spin on either. You have the collectivists, and you have the individualists.

Individualists come from the perspective of our founding fathers. Personal freedom and responsibility is their guiding principle. They believe that everyone has to take personal responsibility as an individual for themselves, their families, their property, and their neighbors and community. The central or federal government, to them, is something that needs to be kept small, with resposibilities broken up by states and communities. The indiviudalists feel that this gives them the most "voice" and control over their own environment. The federal government is really only there to keep us safe, and to protect our freedoms. Anything that extends beyond that duty is an overextension of power. Further, Governments need to be tightly controlled, watched, and never blindly trusted. This is due to the simple fact that people not only make mistakes, but also get greedy and self-interested when they get powerful. So checks and balances must be maintained.

From this standpoint, individualists believe that self-defense is first and foremost the right and responsibility of the individual. It is up to me to protect myself, my family, my property, and my community. It is up to me to take the proper measures to do this. That means a variety of implications that are up to the individual to pursue; from behaving in a safe manner to having insurance and alarm systems to carrying a firearm to volunteering as a firefighter or reserve police or joining a neighborhood watch program. The police serve to enforce laws, not defend individuals. So, for the individualist, self-defense extends far passed the immediate circumstance of "what if I get attacked." It extends to "what if my neighbor gets attacked" and "can I take up arms against an invasion or violent crime?" For the individualist, "self-defense" extends far beyond "self," and having the right to bear arms is impairative to this ideal.

Collectivists have a different guiding principle; and that is that of a collective good. The belief of the collectivist is that since we are all social animals and rely on each other, that the decisions of mankind need to be directed towards a collective good. "It takes a village" is an overlaying belief. Collectivists generally push for a larger federal government and more centralization to be able to make decisions for a greater good. Collectivists don't mind paying more taxes, if it means that more will get taken care of in return for the betterment of everyone.

From this standpoint, the collectivist is more apt to rely on the government to take care of certain responsabilities; and self-defense becomes key in this. Essentially, collectivists are willing to trade a right (like the right to carry a firearm) in exchange for what they believe is a greater good like public safety or protection or a public service. So, for a collectivist, it makes sense to regulate firearms, even strictly. If we can regulate firearms and that results in less crime, then that makes sense to them(even though we know this isn't true due to evidence). And this trade off is O.K. because a collectivist would ordinarily never even think of needing to protect the community or a neighbor or anything outside of themselves, because the police or military will take care of that. Giving up this right or responsibility becomes justifiable if it is for a greater good.

And some collectivist will take this pretty far into extreme pacifism; even as far enough to believe that self-defense is really not a right, because by defending yourself you are having to bring violence to someone else, and/or defending you is the responsibility of the government or society.

So, this becomes the issue. Most people fall somewhere between these two "camps," but where one falls will determine the boundries of 'self-defense.' If you believe that defending yourself, your family, and society is a personal responsability, then the right to bear arms is impairative. If you believe that self-defense doesn't extend as far and that the state needs to step in and take that responsibility, then you may be willing to regulate firearms for a greater good.

I, of course, stand more with the individualists. Although we are social beings, we need to preserve our rights and freedoms, and take personal responsability for ourselves and what goes on around us. By doing this, we will be doing something for a greater good. By trying to regulate according to a "greater good," 'good' becomes subjective and can lead us to oppression and tyranny

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I wasn't aware that the United Nations had the right to vote, or the ability write legislation for the United States of America.

Well, that's the very problem--it sure as hell *thinks* it does--twice in a row, the UN tried unsuccessfully to force the US to become a signatory to a global gun ban treaty, enforceable by the UN on US soil.

Just to add insult to injury, the second occasion they tried this was held on the 4th of July no less.

If that doesn't give you some perspective on just how arrogant they've really become then I'm really not sure what would.

But apart from their wishing to meddle in US politics that is perhaps better suited to another thread.

Please describe the difference is between the two descriptions.

A) - A right
B) - A means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another

I am not certain I see a tactical difference.

that is an excellent question--for whoever decided to put them in the same paragraph as it was written and tried to distinguish them. I try not to wonder what's going on in such peoples' minds--figure I'll stay sane that way.

 

[michaeledward]

I find it baffling that you can not describe the functional difference in the language you use to defend an accusation of a straw man. And yet you continue to rail against that language.

If there is no discernable difference in the language above (A vs B), then why get so riled up?

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I'm not riled up. You asked me what incident I drew from which led me to believe many people did not believe in the right to self defense. I showed it to you. This additional questioning is of your making.

The language speaks for itself--They state self defense is an excuse for violating the "rights" of another, who by definition, if one is defending oneself from their actions, has already chosen not to respect that person's rights to begin with, that "self-defense" is not a right and cannot be used as an "excuse".

 

[michaeledward]

Andy Moynihan, I do not believe your understanding and interpretation of the language you quote is very inaccurate.

 

[Cryozombie]

First off, Hannity is wrong.

Chicago has tougher gun laws than New York.

I like Brak. I really do. BUTTTTT....I don't trust any Democrat from Illinois to do whats right by the 2nd amendment. The track record in this state is attrocious, and getting worse.

 

[Cruentus]

I find it baffling that you can not describe the functional difference in the language you use to defend an accusation of a straw man. And yet you continue to rail against that language.

If there is no discernable difference in the language above (A vs B), then why get so riled up?

Not to jump into this too much (because I won't be able to follow up as I'll be out of town anyway), but the thing that bothers me about "B" is "a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another" part. The implication could be taken as "self-defense" is really just an excuse to violate the rights of another.

I don't know how they mean it because it isn't my quote so I am not sure of the context. But I do know that some people, particularly in countries where people have no gun rights, believe that carrying a weapon somehow violates the rights of others to be safe. Obviously this is illogical, as my weapon could make others more safe, less safe, or have no effects depending on my actions. However, some rationalize in this manner. Knowing this and seeing a quote and knowing that some UN members have been in support of a worldwide ban, I find this very disconcerting.

First off, Hannity is wrong.

Chicago has tougher gun laws than New York.

I like Brak. I really do. BUTTTTT....I don't trust any Democrat from Illinois to do whats right by the 2nd amendment. The track record in this state is attrocious, and getting worse.

Like Hannity, Chicago's gun laws suck horribly. I don't trust Obama at all in regards to 2nd Amendment rights, based on that and things he has said to support the anti-gun movement.

Although his record is shaky on this issue, Edwards has actually said some good stuff regarding 2nd amendment rights if I were to have to pick a democrate that could potentially win. It's hard to trust based on his record, but who knows? People sometimes think differently when they are looking at presidency vs. other offices.

However, it's a mote point at the moment. Unless Obama and Edwards can somehow close that 20-30% gap in the polls, it'll be Hillary that will be the dems pick.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Andy Moynihan, I do not believe your understanding and interpretation of the language you quote is very inaccurate.

Umm....thanks?

(Sorry I wasn't able to respond yesterday and just caught this, I'm afraid I've been away at drill till now)