Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not abolish any RIGHT

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: TinySickTears

They may be human creations, but even the framers admit they are only recognizing natural rights. For instance, we have a natural right to exist

why do we have that right?
because the framers say so?

natural rights are human constructs
of course i want to exist but do i have the right to?
why do i have the right to? cause a few dudes say i do?

en.wikipedia.org...

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable (they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).

i mean that is a nice concept and it would be awesome if it were true but in reality its not true.
they can not be repealed or replaced until they are

that is the reality of the situation

i wish we could peek into the future about 200 years and see how those rights look

One of the first Western thinkers to develop the contemporary idea of natural rights was French theologian Jean Gerson, whose 1402 treatise De Vita Spirituali Animae is considered one of the first attempts to develop what would come to be called modern natural rights theory

so before then we didnt have natural anything.

and we have them now until we dont

believe me man i wish these things were true and unalienable but the fact is they are not. well they are until they arent

i think the reality is we dont have the right to a damn thing. im talking big picture.
we have rights now as they exist at this moment but they can change and they will. it is only a matter of time.

i dont want this to be the case but it is.

ALL of this is human constructs

did homo ergaster have the unalienable right to whatever??????
i think not

what the # makes us so special?

if you think these rights we have will be the same or even exist in a couple hundred years i think you are dreaming my friend

a reply to: JBurns

I look at it this way, we should have the ability to own a gun or guns in case someone threatens our family or tries to rob us. I do not care that much about the second amendment but am sure that if they got rid of our right to bear arms, they would take away all of the honest people's guns shortly after using precedence to do so. I have no doubt at all they will do that.

We do not need machine guns to protect ourselves and we do not need them to overthrow the government if it gets overpowering and corrupt, we will need them if the progressives take away our rights. Two hundred fifty thousand people with guns can stop the government from taking away our control of it. They do not need to be machine guns either. Most of our present military people will not attack the citizens if they see that the government is getting out of hand, most soldiers fight for our people, not our government itself.

a reply to: rickymouse

most soldiers fight for our people, not our government itself.

Agreed I'd put that number at 90% at least

And you are correct, they would be no match for our patriotic soldiers/police officers, and the vast number of Citizens providing both technical, logistical and operational support when and wherever needed. My personal theory is that our military would depose any such government before it got to the point we tore ourselves apart in such a way (third world country overnight)

I look at it this way, we should have the ability to own a gun or guns in case someone threatens our family or tries to rob us.

Admittedly, it is the same for me. I do believe the concept of an armed/trained Citizenry provides a strong deterrent to government tyranny, but my primary concern is violence by criminals.

To be sure, I don't believe our current situation is nearly severe enough for those types of solutions. But an attempted gun grab would certainly not go over well, and I would fully expect it to spark a protracted and deep reaching domestic conflict

a reply to: TinySickTears

I hear what you are saying, and I suppose at its core you are correct. In the sense that our rights are secured, but do not self-sustain or perpetuate. That frankly most of us take our liberty for granted, and seemingly care more about the issue of the day than the health of our Constitution, government and Republic

I suppose the lesson is that each individual should be ready to stand for our Constitution, and fight to preserve our rights like our lives depended on it.

It would indeed be nice if everyone could simply agree to respect each other's rights. And leave the divisive issues up to individual choice and self determination

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: TinySickTears


I suppose the lesson is that each individual should be ready to stand for our Constitution, and fight to preserve our rights like our lives depended on it.

It would indeed be nice if everyone could simply agree to respect each other's rights. And leave the divisive issues up to individual choice and self determination

first we would need everyone to agree on what those rights are and right away we hit a roadblock
we live in a country with 300 million people. different races. cultures. etc
on the whole people are never going to fall in line because what is important to me is not important to you.
thats a faxt.

it sounds good on this board. fight to preserve our rights? what rights?
the rights we dont even all agree on?
fight how?
with our lives?

# that...... i cant fight and risk my life. i have children. i dont have that luxury. i fight to make sure my kids can live another day. hopefully another day after that.

it would be nice if we were all accepted as people of the world. not even citizens. just people of the world. trying to have the best existence possible but thats not the reality either

cause so and so believes in the bible so gays are out. abortion is out. shellfish on sunday is out
some people are white and dont believe in laying with non whites
some believe we have the right to bear arms and others dont
and on and on and on
some pro choice. come pro life
some this. some that

we are a nation of 300 people and we cant agree on #. look at how right/laws differ from state to state.

it is only a matter of time until the entire thing #ing explodes

ideally we all have the i dont # with you and you dont # with me attitude and lets try to make it to 90.
thats not the case

cause john doe over here does not approve of this or that way of life so he has to try and prevent it
and john doe over there thinks this or that should be a way of life so he has to push it

the reality is we are on borrowed time and we dont have an unalienable right to # and sooner or later it is gonna blow.
history shows us that

civilizations and countries fall and get run over and then they spring back up with a new set of ideal and laws and the process starts all over again.
its #ed up man but thats the way it is.

look at abortion. some are for it. some are against it and thats fine

if i am against it why do i need to try and campaign and push rules and laws on you based on what i believe?
apply that to anything...

thats just what people do
its a miracle the whole thing has not imploded already but its coming

bottom line is all the rights and whatever we think we have are all human constructs that are subject to change on a moments notice.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Inalienable rigjts...the rights you would have were there no government.

Youd be able to talk.

Fight

Defend your home from interlopers

That is what inalienable rights are. Rights that speak to how humans, as animals of this planet, were born in possesion of.

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: TinySickTears

They may be human creations, but even the framers admit they are only recognizing natural rights. For instance, we have a natural right to exist

why do we have that right?
because the framers say so?

natural rights are human constructs
of course i want to exist but do i have the right to?
why do i have the right to? cause a few dudes say i do?

en.wikipedia.org...

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable (they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).

i mean that is a nice concept and it would be awesome if it were true but in reality its not true.
they can not be repealed or replaced until they are

that is the reality of the situation

i wish we could peek into the future about 200 years and see how those rights look

One of the first Western thinkers to develop the contemporary idea of natural rights was French theologian Jean Gerson, whose 1402 treatise De Vita Spirituali Animae is considered one of the first attempts to develop what would come to be called modern natural rights theory

so before then we didnt have natural anything.

and we have them now until we dont

believe me man i wish these things were true and unalienable but the fact is they are not. well they are until they arent

i think the reality is we dont have the right to a damn thing. im talking big picture.
we have rights now as they exist at this moment but they can change and they will. it is only a matter of time.

i dont want this to be the case but it is.

ALL of this is human constructs

did homo ergaster have the unalienable right to whatever??????
i think not

what the # makes us so special?

if you think these rights we have will be the same or even exist in a couple hundred years i think you are dreaming my friend

I don't hold with this line of thought. I'm not seeing a man made construct here. Basic inalienable right boils down to universal human nature. The instinct for self preservation.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: TinySickTears

Inalienable rigjts...the rights you would have were there no government.

Youd be able to talk.

Fight

Defend your home from interlopers

That is what inalienable rights are. Rights that speak to how humans, as animals of this planet, were born in possesion of.

Yes. What you said.

a reply to: JBurns

Our RKBA (and other rights) exist independently from the Constitution. This is why they're unalienable, god-given rights as opposed to rights granted by a government/group of men.

Exactly! This is what makes a liberal a liberal. All those rights apply to everyone, irrespective of race, creed, color, or nationality. Think about what that implies. It makes deportation without due process unconstitutional, for example.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Yeah, we took those guns out of the hands of criminals.

I think there may be just a little bit of difference there. Fully automatic guns have been illegal for a very long time, there are laws governing those that do not interfere with the interpretation of our right to bear arms. That was hashed out long time ago. The vast majority of people have no problem with bans on fully automatic weapons.

Every day we wait, is a day longer it will take for other firearms legislation to have the same effect the automatic weapons bans have today. Seems to me like an argument to do it now.

a reply to: JBurns

Oh, so you're fine with that Constitutional breach, but it's the next one where you'll say enough is enough and stand up?

a reply to: Aazadan

If they start to enforce the laws we already have on the books properly as they are supposed to, we would not need new laws. Obama pushed a law through before he left that would have taken away my right to own a gun, just because my wife was required to oversea my finances in regard to social security while I am disabled because of the epilepsy

I can handle my own money, and I don't do anything much with my guns anymore other than clean them occasionally, most belonged either to my Father or Uncle and I inherited them. I did take the granddaughter down to the gun club to practice to shoot after she got her permit to shoot a gun.

I am no threat to society, but if someone who was armed tried to break into our house at night, I would be a threat to them.

If they ban semiautomatic rifles, that would mean sixty percent of guns in this country would be illegal.

originally posted by: JBurns


That being said, it does not grant us any rights. Our right to keep and bare arms exists independently of 2A. Our RKBA was not granted by government, and it has zero authority to take those rights away. And the 14th Amendment forces the States to respect this as well (in addition to millions of armed patriots)

It does not openly grant, but it defines what rights are so in a way it does grant it. If we did not have the 2nd what would tell us that guns are a unalienable, god-given right? Is this some kind of innate instinctive knowledge that we humans are just born?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: JBurns

Our RKBA (and other rights) exist independently from the Constitution. This is why they're unalienable, god-given rights as opposed to rights granted by a government/group of men.

Exactly! This is what makes a liberal a liberal. All those rights apply to everyone, irrespective of race, creed, color, or nationality. Think about what that implies. It makes deportation without due process unconstitutional, for example.

What? Where did deportation come from?/

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: TinySickTears

Inalienable rigjts...the rights you would have were there no government.

Youd be able to talk.

Fight

Defend your home from interlopers

That is what inalienable rights are. Rights that speak to how humans, as animals of this planet, were born in possesion of.

I hear you and I understand. Gun rights really don't for that though you know.
Calm down people. Not saying take them away. Just making a point.
Gun rights are an invention of man

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Aazadan

If they start to enforce the laws we already have on the books properly as they are supposed to, we would not need new laws.

When there are laws that are not being enforced, they should somehow expire. They obviously do not reflect the will of the people or else they would be enforced.

originally posted by: toms54
When there are laws that are not being enforced, they should somehow expire. They obviously do not reflect the will of the people or else they would be enforced.

My solution to this is more laws, but not for us... for the government. I think we need to enumerate an actual amount of time that can be considered a right to a speedy trial. Then, I think we need to eliminate the plea bargain system. Finally, I think we need a law that says that if you do not goto trial within that specified time, you are automatically considered not guilty.

originally posted by: rickymouse
If they ban semiautomatic rifles, that would mean sixty percent of guns in this country would be illegal.

This doesn't bother me. I think some sort of balance has to be struck with guns because they're popular, but my personal stance is that I would have no problem eliminating guns with a few exceptions (hunting, gun clubs, and certain rural areas).

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It's not a complicated concept. Thing of guns, or any sort of weapon, as substitutes for the claws and teeth we no longer have...assuming we ever had 'em.

a reply to: Xtrozero

It says "arms". Be that knives, clubs, our fists, and, of course, guns. Implicit is the protection of the right to defend ourselves with those arms.