Second Amendment Rights Are Not Actually Rights (Not All Of Them, At Least)

Well, they call them "rights", but they don't really function as such (in my view). For the purposes of this short rant, we will assume that ammunition falls under "firearms" to avoid the hassle of addressing it separately. I need to go to bed so this will be relatively short, but here is why:

Capitalism. No, seriously, because capitalism. Much more specifically, because all guns are sold with the intent of generating profit and arguably because guns are sold at all (without other means of acquisition.)

Guns are a privilege.
A privilege you must pay for to acquire and have no legal means of obtaining without payment. Rights are innate, rights are thinks that cannot be violated outside of absurdly extreme mitigating circumstances (planetary annihilation) and even then it is murky. They are not things with a price tag.

Think of the homeless, the penniless. Do they have a means of acquiring firearms? No. Is there a reason beyond their lack of funds as to why obtaining a gun might be impossible? No. Not all of the time. The only thing that stands between a penniless person and what is supposedly their right is money, not even to buy a gun at production cost, but at an up-marked value for the sake of generating profit for a corporation (or rarely an individual gunsmith.) If the only thing between a person and their right is cold hard cash, then it's not a right.

If you had to pay up before being exempted from cruel and unnecessary punishment, would it be a right?
If you had to pay up before being free from slavery, would it be a right?
If you had to pay up before being given a fair trial, would it be a right? (Well, most trials are unfair anyway, just not as unfair as they could be.)

To put it bluntly, you don't have a right, you have the: Sacrosanct privilege of the opportunity to purchase firearms within the bounds dictated by potential suppliers devoid of overt government influence. (Overt being a totally arbitrary limit decided by the: Population? Individual? Suppliers?)

The actual "right" part comes into it where you are guaranteed the right to possess those firearms, but it becomes weird because the method of getting them is a privilege, because it requires money. Essentially, it is a privilege to exercise a right. Because Capitali$m.

(Before people get all angry, I'm not anti-Capitalist, I'm... Anti-Corporatist, I suppose? I do hate Capitalism, but I also acknowledge that no superior (practical) system exists. It's currently f*cking up majorly worldwide though, and needs to be corrected before we spiral into disgusting levels of plutocracy/oligarchy/wealth inequality/control of the many by the few.)

Even though this is the rant forum, I'll end this by saying it's just my opinion and analysis of things, and is probably extremely far from strictly technically correct.

I mean.. I guess. Take it into context though.

You have a right to assemble peacefully... That doesn't mean protesters will be provided by the government.

Rights are more about what the government cannot infringe upon less about what the government or others are supposed to give you or provide you.

Though I will agree capitalism has turned into a beast.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

If I understnad your position correctly, then you misunderstand the meaning of "Constitutionally protected right", or where those right emanate. It is a common misconception. See, the rights are NOT granted by the government, no rights are. They are (as per the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights) rights endowed by your creator (whim/what-ever you see that to mean). The constitution states the the government cannot interfere with those rights, based upon the text of each amendment.

In the case of the 1st amendment, the government cannot establish or support one religion over another. In addition, they cannot prevent you from expressing yourself freely, or to associate with whomever you choose, or to protest against the government (this does not include acts of violence or other actions that are illegal).

In the case of the 2nd amendment, every person is allowed to own and carry firearms, as that is essential to the protection of them and ultimately the state, and shall not be infringed (meaning prevented or otherwise delayed).

As you can see, your rights are inherent in being human. The Constitution protects those rights from government interference or outright stripping of them from you without due process of law (that's in the 5th amendment).

I hope that explains it a bit better.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

INteresting take on the issue. This whole gun issue/right to bear arms is madness. The law pertaining to the "right to bear arms" needs to be updated. It was written at a time when there was a legitimate threat. My opinion.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

For the purposes of intent, the word "arms" means any arms. Firearms, knives, swords, cannon. A further description in the amendment would be useless, there are too many to name. It went without saying when it was written. An arm is anything you used to hunt, fight or defend yourself with.

The 'granted' right under the amendment: to keep and bear (own and carry) arms, shall not be infringed.

a reply to: lostbook

Then, start a movement to amend the Constitution! There is a process in place to make that happen if the majority of the states (i.e. 38) approve, then it will be done. Anything less is disingenuous and unconstitutional.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Technically, anyone with the right materials and know-how can make a gun. It might be a muzzle loading flint lock, but there you go.

Bill Of Rights says that I have freedom of expression. How I do it is up to me though. I can either stand on a side walk in the city and shout things.......or I can go out, buy a computer/laptop/tablet/smart phone, get internet access and do it that way......all of which the government did not provide me.

The Bill Of Rights is a promise from the government. They are not privileges.

Anyone that thinks our government can take away our rights, because they are privileges: You're doing it wrong.

It means you're empowering the government, and it's no longer ruled by the people, for the people.

We are suppose to have people in government that represent our best interests, and have the ability to jerk the rug out from under them when they start to abuse that power.

If, on the other hand you tell them that our rights are privileges and they they can have the power to taken them away, what you have done is effectively given them all the power, and it is the rug under us that will be jerked away.

You just pointed out what is no secret and very well known...the more money you have then the more rights you have. Shouldn't principally be this way but in reality it is a fundamental and unfortunate truth.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Yeah, you're pretty off-base, here. I mean, I see the round-about logic that you're trying to use, but just because something is a right doesn't mean that the government must provide the means by which you exercise that right.

There is freedom of the press, but that doesn't mean that a penniless man can start up his own news organization and get a press pass.

You have the right to freely exercise your religion, but that doesn't mean that a penniless man can expect the government to provide him a place of worship.

You have the right to free speech, but the government doesn't need to provide you with an audience that will listen to it.

You have the right to a speedy trial by jury, but that doesn't mean that you have to use the jury in your trial.

I think I'm making my point, here. Just because we have certain rights enumerated in the Constitution does not mean that we have to have the ability or means to exercise them. I think that the major point that you're ignoring, here, is that these rights were believed to be natural rights, and they are enumerated so that the government cannot take them away without due process.

Natural law dictates that we all have the right to defend ourselves, too--not everybody can fight, or use a knife, or use a gun, or can even respond with appropriate defensive techniques when a situation calls upon it. Does that mean that, since we must (usually) pay to take self-defense classes, that it is not a right?

No.

And quite honestly, gun manufacturers have a right to expect and demand compensation for their products. It's part of the system, and it all works relatively well, IMO. Here in KY, if I wanted to give a firearm to someone who could not afford one, it's perfectly legal to do so (as long as they're of age and have no felonies or other determining factors). So, you're forgetting that there are charitable groups and people out there that can and do provide for others who are less-fortunate and can't afford certain things.

So, just keep in mind that most rights might bring with them certain things that are necessary to overcome in order to exercise those rights--that's called life. Not everything gets handed to everyone on a silver platter.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn
You write eloquently but you need to read the Constitution. Homeless people have the right to arm themselves in any home they currently reside. Whether a barrel, cardboard box or a broken-down vehicle used as their home, their right shall not be infringed. Penniless people can arm themselves with what ever is available, slingshot, baseball bat, pointy stick and their right shall not be infringed. Our country is the greatest in the world. Why people want to change it I have no idea...

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

INteresting take on the issue. This whole gun issue/right to bear arms is madness. The law pertaining to the "right to bear arms" needs to be updated. It was written at a time when there was a legitimate threat. My opinion.

There has never been a more legitimate threat than from our Government than right now. People like you end up helping the Authoritarians take away rights from the people.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Yes, rights are eternal.

They are inherent to EVERY human being.

If you believe in "God", our rights come from "God".

If you dont believe in "God", rights are naturally occurring.

No paper (the Constitution) nor government grants us our rights. The Constitution does however, try to protect our "God" given or naturally occurring rights.

Self defense is a right of every human being.

Until someone invents an atomic dissipator, that right takes the form of a gun.

The gun is the great equalizer, especially for the weaker among us: women and the elderly.

Its true, you have to buy a gun but that is a secondary (and separate) issue.

First and foremost, the right to self defense cannot (shall not be) be infringed.

a reply to: lostbook

With so many people coming after our rights currently, from congresspeople to common citizens, we are now in a time of legitimate threat.

And to OP: the right isn't to guns. You don't have a right to a gun. You have a right to bear arms. Arms defined as "weapons and ammunition." A sock can be a weapon. The right the Constitution is protecting is the right to self defense.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Spoken well by someone who would embrace an authoritarian-style government.

I'll take freedom, thank you.

Just remember, the Bill of Rights limits government.

It does not detail citizen privileges.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

INteresting take on the issue. This whole gun issue/right to bear arms is madness. The law pertaining to the "right to bear arms" needs to be updated. It was written at a time when there was a legitimate threat. My opinion.

There has never been a more legitimate threat than from our Government than right now. People like you end up helping the Authoritarians take away rights from the people.

When the law was written, there was an active battle with the British to gain freedom. Last I checked, there are no active battles with any governmental body. Are you actively being threatened by the Government? Has anything been taken from you? And no, I do not want to take away our rights to own a gun if need-be. Sometimes they are necessary. However, there are absolutely too many guns available.....

a reply to: lostbook

And that is your opinion. Freely expressed, and without fear of government censorship due to that old document you mentioned earlier. I suggest you respect its worth a bit more.

a reply to: lostbook

And there were (and still are in many places) dangerous animals that can harm you greatly or kill you.

And there was hunting to be done (and can still do...I don't depend upon the government to feed me, nor grocery stores).

And then there was the Battle of Athens in 1946 where guns were used to fight against a government that was abusing the system....right here in the US....and it worked!

Not as out dated as you city folk like to think it is.

2nd amendment simply recognizes and affirms the God given / natural / whatever, right to self defense. It does not "grant" the right. Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says. BTW, for those who say there are restrictions to all rights and cite the well worn, "You can't yell FIRE in a theater?" Well, technically, yes you can under the 1st amendment. What you will be arrested for is inciting the panic that ensues, not for yelling fire.

a reply to: SonofaSkunk

Well said (about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater). The constitution protects you from government censorship, but not private censorship, nor the consequences of that free speech. Only that the government cannot stop you from expressing yourself freely. You can still get public backlash, and have no expectation of protection from being "offended" either. That protection exists between ones ears. You control that area, not the government (yet). However, if Sen. Feinstein and others get their way, being arrested for a "thought crime" will become a stark reality.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: lostbook

And there were (and still are in many places) dangerous animals that can harm you greatly or kill you.

And there was hunting to be done (and can still do...I don't depend upon the government to feed me, nor grocery stores).

And then there was the Battle of Athens in 1946 where guns were used to fight against a government that was abusing the system....right here in the US....and it worked!

Not as out dated as you city folk like to think it is.

Ok. This is an instance when it was necessary and I agree with this. However, by going back and fourth like this does not solve the issue of gun violence. Why don't you get your guns and prepare to prevent the next massacre? Oh yeah, you can't, and that's the problem because this gun violence will only get worse as time moves on. No one can be prepared for every event which MAY occur which is why we need to take steps now. The government isn't taking anything away from us; there are subtle infringements but nothing as major as to take up arms and fight the PTB. Talk to you after the next massacre.