I am sick of people using need as a way to justify a right.

"What do you need with a 30 round clip [sic] or an assault weapon?"
"What do you need a handgun for?"
"What do you need a .50 caliber rifle for?"
"What do you need...."
"What do you need...."
"What do you need...."


GAH!

I'm tired of it!

Fine, you want to base rights on need? You don't have a need for a fast internet connection. Here's AOL version 3.5! You don't need to type that fast. Here is your completely blank keyboard. Guess the keys! You don't need to practice THAT religon. Here, let us force you into this one.

Rights are not based on needs. Rights are inherent in a born person and are not based on what someone thinks you might need.

You don't need roads to drive on. You don't need a fire department. You don't need education. You don't need to be able to spout your religious views.

But sometimes we make concessions in our personal wants for the greater good of society. That's what society is.

Not to mention being accused of being right-wing shills and closet conservatives by some liberals.

I hear you, it's irritating at best and downright maddening at worst. What pisses me off the most is every time there's a tragedy like the one in Arizona they cannot wait to drag the bloody corpses around behind them to further their agenda.

What many of them fail to realize, or won't admit is, THEY are the ones with their proverbial "hats in their hands" on the issues. We are the ones who choose to exercise a natural right that is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

If I'm approached on the issues in a respectful manner I'm more than happy to discuss it with them, but when they come at me screaming "gun nut" and other epithets, they can all go crap in their hats as far as I'm concerned....

This is especially evident on Democratic Underground.

Zapp Brannigan wrote:This is especially evident on Democratic Underground.

No kidding, I've been a member there since '03 and they have some people that just go to pieces and lose all perspective when it comes to gun issues. Trying to talk sense to some of them about guns is like trying to convince a wingnut that the Iraq war was unnecessary. All you get from them is shrieking emotional hyperbole

Sometimes just re-calibrating the conversation with checking the definitions helps smooth things out. Needs and rights are not synonyms.

I don't have a need for a 30rd mag but I have the right to get one.

I do agree with the irritation regarding the "need" argument. I am not a fan of high capacity magazines but I do recognize the right to own them. I would argue differently about them along the lines the mason regarding balancing desires versus societal interests. I think that we all draw that line a bit differently.

KVoimakas wrote:Rights are inherent in a born person and are not based on what someone thinks you might need.

Need =/= right, agreed. But lemme ax you dis - what are the inherent rights of a born person, and why are they inherent? My point here is that it's similar to saying there is an absolute truth - there isn't, and the closest you can come to it is the agreement of the majority of what a "universal" truth is (and NEVER absolute).

Similarly "inherent rights" are what the majority agree they are. Fortunately most people recognize most "rights" as what the species need to live dignified, free and fulfilling lives, e.g right to privacy, family, having children, travel, speech, etc.

However, the "right" to own a firearm is not an inherent right - mentally unstable people, or those who are otherwise judged by the system to be unfit for firearms ownership, are clearly declared as exempt from this. Therefore it is an attributed or allocated right.

AdAstra wrote:

KVoimakas wrote:Rights are inherent in a born person and are not based on what someone thinks you might need.

Need =/= right, agreed. But lemme ax you dis - what are the inherent rights of a born person, and why are they inherent? My point here is that it's similar to saying there is an absolute truth - there isn't, and the closest you can come to it is the agreement of the majority of what a "universal" truth is (and NEVER absolute).

Similarly "inherent rights" are what the majority agree they are. Fortunately most people recognize most "rights" as what the species need to live dignified, free and fulfilling lives, e.g right to privacy, family, having children, travel, speech, etc.

However, the "right" to own a firearm is not an inherent right - mentally unstable people, or those who are otherwise judged by the system to be unfit for firearms ownership, are clearly declared as exempt from this. Therefore it is an attributed or allocated right.

So are you arguing that we have no inherent rights? All rights are revocable as part of the social compact? I just want to clarify.

AdAstra wrote:However, the "right" to own a firearm is not an inherent right - mentally unstable people, or those who are otherwise judged by the system to be unfit for firearms ownership, are clearly declared as exempt from this. Therefore it is an attributed or allocated right.

Wrong.

RKBA of felons and those involuntarily committed to mental institutions is infringed upon by the government. We as a society have deemed that limited infringement acceptable. It doesn't change the fact that self defense is a fundamental right and RKBA is merely a subset of the right to self defense.

Here is your completely blank keyboard. Guess the keys!

The keys on mine are more than 90% rubbed off.

You're a NON NERRRRRRRRRRRRD

Caliman73 wrote: So are you arguing that we have no inherent rights? All rights are revocable as part of the social compact? I just want to clarify.

Yes/No, and yes.

Let's separate the concepts of "inherent" and "universal" rights, and set aside the latter.

Let's also consider a specific society, i.e. the USA. By saying I have an inherent to right to X, then all of us in this society must agree to the definition of X and why I have that inherent right, because it takes the recognition of society in order for me to exercise this right. Some might say it is God who gave me this right; some may say just by virtue of existing and/or/access, I have this right (this kinda falls under the "universal" right thing); and some may say that because it is "natural" (whatever that means). The fact is, though, that "inherent" alludes to something that has been granted by a higher authority or circumstance that everyone must recognize and respect, if it is to be "inherent". However, there is no general agreement on this higher authority or circumstance: not everyone believes in God (or in a god); nor does everyone believe that the Founding Fathers can speak for God, or speak with divinity when attributing certain rights as "inherent'. We can all only go by what has been agreed to by the majority, and in this country, that is the Constitution as law. Whether the rights recognized by the Constitution are inherent or not, the bottom line is that it is the law. So do we have inherent rights? I would rather say that we all have an inherent understanding of right and wrong, and the rights we all agree to as a society come from this inherent understanding.

All rights are revocable, including the ultimate: life. You need only to look at the justice system for examples.

Wurble wrote:
RKBA of felons and those involuntarily committed to mental institutions is infringed upon by the government. We as a society have deemed that limited infringement acceptable.

Where in the Constitution does it say that? And where in the Constitution does it say the opposite? Nowhere for either, since the Constitution is a high level document, the enforcement and implementation of which is subject to interpretation. Your interpretation is not law. Nowhere is it stated that the government commits an infringement of rights in order to administer justice. On the contrary, convicted felons (e.g.) are recognized as devoid of certain rights.

Wurble wrote: It doesn't change the fact that self defense is a fundamental right and RKBA is merely a subset of the right to self defense.

What does this have to do with the discussion topic? Self-defense is not synonymous with RKBA - as you stated, the latter is a subset. Absence of RKBA does not negate self-defense as a right.

AdAstra wrote:

Caliman73 wrote: So are you arguing that we have no inherent rights? All rights are revocable as part of the social compact? I just want to clarify.

Yes/No, and yes.

Let's separate the concepts of "inherent" and "universal" rights, and set aside the latter.

Let's also consider a specific society, i.e. the USA. By saying I have an inherent to right to X, then all of us in this society must agree to the definition of X and why I have that inherent right, because it takes the recognition of society in order for me to exercise this right. Some might say it is God who gave me this right; some may say just by virtue of existing and/or/access, I have this right (this kinda falls under the "universal" right thing); and some may say that because it is "natural" (whatever that means). The fact is, though, that "inherent" alludes to something that has been granted by a higher authority or circumstance that everyone must recognize and respect, if it is to be "inherent". However, there is no general agreement on this higher authority or circumstance: not everyone believes in God (or in a god); nor does everyone believe that the Founding Fathers can speak for God, or speak with divinity when attributing certain rights as "inherent'. We can all only go by what has been agreed to by the majority, and in this country, that is the Constitution as law. Whether the rights recognized by the Constitution are inherent or not, the bottom line is that it is the law. So do we have inherent rights? I would rather say that we all have an inherent understanding of right and wrong, and the rights we all agree to as a society come from this inherent understanding.

All rights are revocable, including the ultimate: life. You need only to look at the justice system for examples.

"I would rather say that we all have an inherent understanding of right and wrong, and the rights we all agree to as a society come from this inherent understanding."

That makes no sense. You cannot argue that we have an "inherent understanding" of anything if you are arguing that we have no inherent anything.

We are not born with any understanding of right and wrong, we learn it. There are societies that practice incest and sexual interaction between adults and children. There is no inherent knowledge of what is appropriate except what society agrees upon at that time.

You want to leave rights up to what is agreed upon by some majority at some point in time? Perhaps there will be some societal shift at some point that will infringe upon a right you find important but hey, that is how we "inherently" understand and allocate rights correct?

AdAstra wrote:

Wurble wrote:
RKBA of felons and those involuntarily committed to mental institutions is infringed upon by the government. We as a society have deemed that limited infringement acceptable.

Where in the Constitution does it say that? And where in the Constitution does it say the opposite? Nowhere for either, since the Constitution is a high level document, the enforcement and implementation of which is subject to interpretation. Your interpretation is not law. Nowhere is it stated that the government commits an infringement of rights in order to administer justice. On the contrary, convicted felons (e.g.) are recognized as devoid of certain rights.

Rights which are inherent are not granted by anything. They are inherent. Everyone has them simply because they exist. They do not require mentioning in order to exist. They do not require a context. They simply are. Certain rights are fundamental and as such inherent in all human beings. Right to freedom of expression, right to self defense and self preservation, etc.

When writing the Constitution, an argument was made against the Bill of Rights because all of the rights mentioned within are fundamental and as such no free society should ever infringe them. Therefore, enumerating those rights was completely redundant. It was ultimately decided that those 10 rights would specifically be enumerated to give an added layer of protection.

The Supreme Court has since recognized many other rights as being fundamental which aren't enumerated in the Constitution. The right to travel is an example.

The question of what rights are inherent and which are not is a question of civics. And no it does not rely on context. Study civics sometime.

The only thing that requires context is ENFORCEMENT and INFRINGEMENT. Whether or not an inherent right is infringed upon is very much subject to local laws and customs. It does not however have any effect on that right being inherent.

flemco wrote:

Here is your completely blank keyboard. Guess the keys!

The keys on mine are more than 90% rubbed off.

You're a NON NERRRRRRRRRRRRD

Heh. I didn't say me, I said others...I might not be a high class nerd (only a couple college degrees, MCSA+M [go MS!], and my CMA) but I do know how to type without looking at the keys...

AdAstra wrote:

Wurble wrote:
RKBA of felons and those involuntarily committed to mental institutions is infringed upon by the government. We as a society have deemed that limited infringement acceptable.

Where in the Constitution does it say that? And where in the Constitution does it say the opposite? Nowhere for either, since the Constitution is a high level document, the enforcement and implementation of which is subject to interpretation.

2nd Amendment - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

It does not say: unless you have a criminal record, unless you've been deemed mentally unfit, unless the firearm in question has a high capacity magazine or has a high rate of fire, unless it makes some weenie nervous, unless the elite are scared of you, unless you have a political view point the establishment doesn't like.

That said I don't think felons or the mentally ill should be allowed to own firearms on the basis of public safety, but that is an exception that affects specific individuals in society who pose specific challenges to said society and is not based on race, creed or affiliation.

Bans on arms based on capacity, rate of fire, barrel length, etc. infringe upon the Constitutional rights of society as a whole and in my opinion are based more upon class struggle than public safety.

Totalitarian societies swing either far to the left (Stalinist Russia, Mau's China, North Korea) or far to the right (the Nazis, Franco's Spain, Musilini's Italy) and one of the fist things they do is confiscate the populations private arms in an effort to protect themselves from their own citizens.

In modern terms look at Great Britain, no one can own a firearm other than low power air rifles (unless you have a noble title then you can buy the right to bear arms) and now they have a violent crime rate that's double ours, Australia: 3 times our rate of violent crime, the Netherlands: highest crime rate in western Europe. You can't hardly walk through London without being on a surveillance cam the entire time and New York is now nearly as bad.

Beyond that, the whole point of the 2nd amendment is for citizens to have the ability to protect themselves not just from criminals and foreign invaders but their own government should it lose sight of the basic principles of Democracy and become overwhelmingly dominated by the elite to the detriment of the proletariat. The far right will happily trample your rights to free speech, freedom of religion and due process if you don't fall in line with their point of view and the far left will willingly infringe upon your right to privacy and to bear arms. Extremists of any stripe are a danger to a free society.

I agree with fair and logical gun control: background checks, licensing, etc.; and in fact I think we need to expand requirements for these aspects of gun control. I do not, however, agree with bans and prohibitions.

Democracy is inherently not a safe choice of government, but I'll accept freedom with risk over safety under oppression.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. - Thomas Jefferson