For anyone who owns a gun!

[COR-TEN]

Um...have you seen what you can buy at a hardware store? Or what's used to clean swimming pools?

You are literally saying that anything that can be used to hurt people is a threat to public safety. That's nonsensical.

What's nonsensical is not being able to see the difference between chlorine, a hammer, or rope, and a semi auto weapon designed to kill. No. They are not the same.

[Pabst]

Um...have you seen what you can buy at a hardware store? Or what's used to clean swimming pools?

You are literally saying that anything that can be used to hurt people is a threat to public safety. That's nonsensical.

What's nonsensical is not being able to see the difference between chlorine, a hammer, or rope, and a semi auto weapon designed to kill. No. They are not the same.

Nice example of a Motte & Bailey. That's a different argument from what I was just responding to

[jebrick]

I think my car ownership analogy is a fair one - do you disagree?
Yet people go every year and register their vehicles...realize there is grumbling about having to add another cost to car ownership, but it is what it is at this point.

So in my analogy, why do we bother having those car registration laws? I don't know if I've ever met someone who felt the government was going to confiscate all the automobiles in the US

Without going through the arguments on this thread - no, i do not agree. Quite simply, you're paying for the right to use state roadways. You can own a car without registering it or insuring it. You run into trouble when you operate it on a public street.

While this is correct on many levels, use of a car is not written into the founding document of our country. It is a right given to you by the States. And is a poor comparison.

[Donnie Brasco]

I think my car ownership analogy is a fair one - do you disagree?
Yet people go every year and register their vehicles...realize there is grumbling about having to add another cost to car ownership, but it is what it is at this point.

So in my analogy, why do we bother having those car registration laws? I don't know if I've ever met someone who felt the government was going to confiscate all the automobiles in the US

Without going through the arguments on this thread - no, i do not agree. Quite simply, you're paying for the right to use state roadways. You can own a car without registering it or insuring it. You run into trouble when you operate it on a public street.

While this is correct on many levels, use of a car is not written into the founding document of our country. It is a right given to you by the States. And is a poor comparison.

Part of the reason it was written into the founding document was due to the fact that having a gun at that time was extremely important/useful. People hunted with it and if you took that tool away, you could have threatened their ability to eat.

Guns were more of a tool back then, just like cars are tools for our livelihood today.

[jebrick]

Part of the reason it was written into the founding document was due to the fact that having a gun at that time was extremely important/useful. People hunted with it and if you took that tool away, you could have threatened their ability to eat.

Guns were more of a tool back then, just like cars are tools for our livelihood today.

It was written into the Constitution to allow people to rise up against repressive governments. Remember that it was written by revolutionaries who over threw what they considered a repressive government. You could also say it was written in so that the government would have militias trained to supplement the army. Both are correct. I would think the founding fathers did not like large standing armies. Those are a more recent addition to the US following WW2. Eisenhower warned against the industrial military complex and it is showing to be true today.

[SteelPro]

I think my car ownership analogy is a fair one - do you disagree?
Yet people go every year and register their vehicles...realize there is grumbling about having to add another cost to car ownership, but it is what it is at this point.

So in my analogy, why do we bother having those car registration laws? I don't know if I've ever met someone who felt the government was going to confiscate all the automobiles in the US

Without going through the arguments on this thread - no, i do not agree. Quite simply, you're paying for the right to use state roadways. You can own a car without registering it or insuring it. You run into trouble when you operate it on a public street.

While this is correct on many levels, use of a car is not written into the founding document of our country. It is a right given to you by the States. And is a poor comparison.

Use of anything isn’t specifically written into the Constitution. What is written in the founding documents are property rights protections and automobiles are considered property. As Pabst pointed out one could own a vehicle and even use it on their own property without the need for registration provided they aren’t operating it on public roadways.

[Donnie Brasco]

Use of anything isn’t specifically written into the Constitution. What is written in the founding documents are property rights protections and automobiles are considered property. As Pabst pointed out one could own a vehicle and even use it on their own property without the need for registration provided they aren’t operating it on public roadways.

So why can't I burn tires or toxic chemicals on MY property then? Why can't I operate a factory on my property even if it's zone residential?

Because the government has a vested interest in protecting your neighbors. So vetting that you properly own and legitimately posses a firearm seems like a reasonable assessment. You could think of it like a census- we count/measure a ton of stuff in this country: people, cars, cash, etc. Why not guns?

Again I'll make the statement that I am typically anti-government. I do not want the government involved in my healthcare or my retirement or even shipping me a letter. But there is a gun issue in this country...like it or lump it and there can't be the continued shoulder shrugging that goes on when a nut job gets a hold of a gun and murders people/kids/worshipers

[Legacy User]

I think my car ownership analogy is a fair one - do you disagree?
Yet people go every year and register their vehicles...realize there is grumbling about having to add another cost to car ownership, but it is what it is at this point.

So in my analogy, why do we bother having those car registration laws? I don't know if I've ever met someone who felt the government was going to confiscate all the automobiles in the US

Without going through the arguments on this thread - no, i do not agree. Quite simply, you're paying for the right to use state roadways. You can own a car without registering it or insuring it. You run into trouble when you operate it on a public street.

While this is correct on many levels, use of a car is not written into the founding document of our country. It is a right given to you by the States. And is a poor comparison.

Why is a right granted you by states different in kind from a right written into the Constitution? Other than the cult of veneration that Madison smartly built around the constitution, our rights are grounded in the principle of reprsentative government. If we agree to alter, expand, or curtail a right, then that is the legitimacy. Most do not know this but Jefferson thought that it was ridiculous to venerate a document and would have preferred an overhaul every 15 to 20 years or so. He believed too much in human reason for his own good!

The Constitution does not spell out natural rights.

[SteelPro]

It is a little scary how some of you view the constitution/government. The constitution wasn’t created to grant people rights. The government has no authority to grant us what we already have. The constitution was created to define the scope of powers that the people were delegating to the government. The US Government has no authority to grant us rights. We do allow government to take away or limit our rights for the good of society.

[Legacy User]

It is a little scary how some of you view the constitution/government. The constitution wasn’t created to grant people rights. The government has no authority to grant us what we already have. The constitution was created to define the scope of powers that the people were delegating to the government. The US Government has no authority to grant us rights. We do allow government to take away or limit our rights for the good of society.

Where do you think your right to free speech comes from? God? Do you have a coherent account of what a right is? Political rights are contractual. I never said the government grants us rights. I said the rights we have owe their legitimacy to political principles of representation. The government exists to guarantee the rights which representatives of the people AGREED we ought have and which were RATIFIED by the states. The rights we have were established. They are not metaphysical principles.

[R_S]

This bill proposed in PA is an AOC type move like the Green New Deal. You propose something so absurd and out there, that it gets a ton of press and get's people talking. Then down the road you propose something less absurd (but still absurd) and it sounds a little more reasonable. Rinse and repeat until you hit that sweet spot. I don't know if there is a name for this strategy but it's obvious.

I own 4 guns. 1 deer rifle 2 shotguns 1 .22 rifle so I pay $40/ year to have 4 hunting rifles sitting in a cabinet and taken into the woods a few times a year. This is actually an attack on people in poverty as much as anything. A family of 6 rednecks in the middle of the Ozarks who have 10-12 hunting rifles used to supplement their grocery bills are now getting pinched for a couple hundred bucks every year.

[Pabst]

The entire point of the Constitution is to say that government does not grant rights to people, and therefore no government has the right to take them away. Natural Rights are the entire goddamn point. WTF am I reading here?

If you want to argue that technology has made guns so dangerous that we need to amend the Constitution, then fine - argue for that. But to say, in a section of the Constitution specifically devoted to individual rights, that the founders included a provision that the military needed to arm itself is fucking stupid.

[Legacy User]

The entire point of the Constitution is to say that government does not grant rights to people, and therefore no government has the right to take

them away. Natural Rights are the entire goddamn point. WTF am I reading here?

If you want to argue that technology has made guns so dangerous that we need to amend the Constitution, then fine - argue for that. But to say, in a section of the Constitution specifically devoted to individual rights, that the founders included a provision that the military needed to arm itself is fucking stupid.

I know well that we are told that the Constitution does not "grant rights," but this is clearly horsehit. In the Declaration are articulated "natural" and "unalienable" rights.

However, in the Constitution, there is never a mention of natural or unalienable rights. Not one mention. There is a Bill of Rights and it can be amended. The Bill of Rights had to be ratified by the States. They did not have to ratify them. If they were not ratified, would the government be obligated to protect me in my possession of them?

Recently, the Constitutionally challenged Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an op-ed in the NYT advocating the repeal of the second amendment!
You cannot repeal a natural or unalienable right.

The "gubmit" cannot take these rights away willy nilly, but there is a process put in place to alter, expand or curtail the rights listed in the Constitution.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Pabst, what do I not understand correctly? Seems like there is clear legal process for amending the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. If the rights in the Bill are natural and not "granted" by the constitution, why was amending written into the document?

[Pabst]

The entire point of the Constitution is to say that government does not grant rights to people, and therefore no government has the right to take

them away. Natural Rights are the entire goddamn point. WTF am I reading here?

If you want to argue that technology has made guns so dangerous that we need to amend the Constitution, then fine - argue for that. But to say, in a section of the Constitution specifically devoted to individual rights, that the founders included a provision that the military needed to arm itself is fucking stupid.

I know well that we are told that the Constitution does not "grant rights," but this is clearly horsehit. In the Declaration are articulated "natural" and "unalienable" rights.

However, in the Constitution, there is never a mention of natural or unalienable rights. Not one mention. There is a Bill of Rights and it can be amended. The Bill of Rights had to be ratified by the States. They did not have to ratify them. If they were not ratified, would the government be obligated to protect me in my possession of them?

Recently, the Constitutionally challenged Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an op-ed in the NYT advocating the repeal of the second amendment!
You cannot repeal a natural or unalienable right.

The "gubmit" cannot take these rights away willy nilly, but there is a process put in place to alter, expand or curtail the rights listed in the Constitution.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Pabst, what do I not understand correctly? Seems like there is clear legal process for amending the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. If the rights in the Bill are natural and not "granted" by the constitution, why was amending written into the document?

The constitution says "Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free speech". It does not say "Congress grants the right to free speech". The implication is that we already have the right. I.e. it's a natural right.

And yes, they also realized that changes could be needed in the future, so they included an amendment process. That doesn't change anything regarding natural rights - the implication there is that the burden lies with the Government to justify taking those rights away; not a person's right to keep it.

I will agree that John Paul Stevens is constitutionally challenged, yes.

[Legacy User]

So why are we able to amend the Bill of Rights?

Edit: my kid is jumping off furniture so have to be quick. My point is that amendments concerning these things is not compatible with a doctrine of natural right. It's easily Argued free speech is not a natural right. Hobbes for instance would deny it. Can’t remember what Locke does at the moment. Shit! Gotta run! Will read your response later.

[Pabst]

So why are we able to amend the Bill of Rights?

Rights are natural. What the Constitution does is place limitations on the government from infringing upon those rights.

The Constitution restricts what the government can do. It's not about granting rights to people. When you amend the constitution, you are granting government the authority to infringe upon your rights.

That help?

[SteelPro]

If we are really going to start dissecting the Constitution and its purpose it is best to start with the first words...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I highlighted the words most relevant to this discussion. My point stands that the Constitution is more about the rights we give to government, not the other way around. This government was formed to secure and protect those rights that our forefathers believed we were already entitled to. Even though these weren't specifically labeled "Natural Rights" or "Inalienable Rights" in the founding document, I am 100% certain secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves meant our natural rights.

[Legacy User]

So why are we able to amend the Bill of Rights?

Rights are natural. What the Constitution does is place limitations on the government from infringing upon those rights.

The Constitution restricts what the government can do. It's not about granting rights to people. When you amend the constitution, you are granting government the authority to infringe upon your rights.

That help?

You’re wrong that all rights are natural if that’s what you’re pushing.

[Pabst]

So why are we able to amend the Bill of Rights?

Rights are natural. What the Constitution does is place limitations on the government from infringing upon those rights.

The Constitution restricts what the government can do. It's not about granting rights to people. When you amend the constitution, you are granting government the authority to infringe upon your rights.

That help?

You’re wrong that all rights are natural if that’s what you’re pushing.

So stick to what's listed in the Bill of Rights and tell me where you disagree

[Legacy User]

Negative language (congress shall pass no law limiting X or Y) is no proof that a right is natural. There is no universal consensus in the history of philosophy that there even is such a thing as natural right. The ancients (no dummies in politics) did not even have a concept of rights. Some political philosophers deny there is such a thing as natural right.

It is unclear what a right even is.

One view of natural right is that which cannot be taken from you because you possess it by virtue of your nature. This is Hobbes’ view. So, you have no natural right to life bc this can be taken from you. No natural right to property bc this can be taken from you. You do have a natural right, however, to self defense bc by nature you will attempt to preserve your life.

Locke has a less restrictive view of natural right. It includes (surprise!) life, liberty and property. But property is is an extension of self by virtue of labor put into something.

In any case, my position is not about what is said in the Bill of Rights but the grounding of right. And there’s nothing obvious about the grounding of rights.

The reason I said that the government establishes our rights is bc from a practical standpoint the government is what guarantees that your rights will be observed. And without that guarantee, we might as well not have rights. They become meaningless.

But if you want to define right and put forward a theory of natural right, I’ll have that convo.

[Legacy User]

Quick follow up (on the off and small chance anyone still cares). Went back to my Locke to be sure I was getting him right.

Locke, unlike Hobbes, who thought without government it as a war of all against all—no one has a right by nature to anything because in the absence of a constraining force (i.e., a sovereign) everyone has a right to everything by force, Locke thought we had a natural right to our own bodies since by nature our bodies are ours. Someone else cannot appropriate our body for his own. This extends to a natural right to property because when we put our labor into something (e.g., tilling a field), we put our self into this and our self is our own. Thus, natural property rights.

But a lot of the material in the Bill of Rights? Free speech, freedom of religion, press, guns, trial by jury, etc, etc. No one had before argued this stuff is natural. And really, I side with Hobbes rather than Locke.

The idea that the government does not establish and guarantee rights is a useful but of political kabuki theater—it makes us feel all the more protective of rights to think them natural as opposed to arbitrary or subjective. But there is no obvious appeal to reason by virtue of which a lot of what we wish to claim as a right by nature is really by nature.

For example, freedom to speak without being inhibited in doing so is dubiously a right by nature. Freedom of THOUGHT, on the other hand, is arguably a right by nature. Being rational by nature, we have no choice but to have thoughts. But having a right by nature to express yourself without consequence? Utter horsehit. That, friends, is ESTABLISHED by the Bill of Rights and guaranteed by the government. It is a fine thing that it is established for us.

[jebrick]

I do agree with Lit that the Bill of rights and the Constitution are frameworks for the Government. It is the Government that enforces the rights and the laws. If you want to put Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness as natural rights then have at it.

I still say this law, if passed, if fails in the courts

[SteelPro]

Quick follow up (on the off and small chance anyone still cares). Went back to my Locke to be sure I was getting him right.

Locke, unlike Hobbes, who thought without government it as a war of all against all—no one has a right by nature to anything because in the absence of a constraining force (i.e., a sovereign) everyone has a right to everything by force, Locke thought we had a natural right to our own bodies since by nature our bodies are ours. Someone else cannot appropriate our body for his own. This extends to a natural right to property because when we put our labor into something (e.g., tilling a field), we put our self into this and our self is our own. Thus, natural property rights.

But a lot of the material in the Bill of Rights? Free speech, freedom of religion, press, guns, trial by jury, etc, etc. No one had before argued this stuff is natural. And really, I side with Hobbes rather than Locke.

The idea that the government does not establish and guarantee rights is a useful but of political kabuki theater—it makes us feel all the more protective of rights to think them natural as opposed to arbitrary or subjective. But there is no obvious appeal to reason by virtue of which a lot of what we wish to claim as a right by nature is really by nature.

For example, freedom to speak without being inhibited in doing so is dubiously a right by nature. Freedom of THOUGHT, on the other hand, is arguably a right by nature. Being rational by nature, we have no choice but to have thoughts. But having a right by nature to express yourself without consequence? Utter horsehit. That, friends, is ESTABLISHED by the Bill of Rights and guaranteed by the government. It is a fine thing that it is established for us.

I just don’t agree. The Bill of Rights did not establish any rights. In fact these first 10 amendments in no way shape or form modified the original articles of the Constitution. All the Bill of Rights did was clarify the rights that the founding fathers believed we already had and were entitled to. And the only reason these individual liberties even had pen put to paper was a compromise between Federalists and anti-Federalists, a compromise that was necessary to get enough states onboard to ratify the constitution. The reason our government exists is because these rights already existed and the government was formed to ensure and protect them. The government didn’t ESTABLISH these rights. These rights are what ESTABLISHED the government.

[Legacy User]

SteelPro, in the Federalist papers, they argue indeed for natural rights.

I’m not talking about intent.

I’m taking a position on what I think is the case for rights.

If you think freedom of speech without abridgement is a right by nature, you need only explain what a right is, what right by nature is, and why the rights you take to be by nature are so.

I can see it for certain forms of property and life if I squint really hard, but Hobbes’ arguments are persuasive for me.

As far as what established the government, well there is the final cause, the moving cause, the material cause and the formal cause.

As far as moving cause of the government, humans gathered and decided to form one by contract.

Typed on phone hope it makes sense.

[SteelPro]

SteelPro, in the Federalist papers, they argue indeed for natural rights.

I’m not talking about intent.

I’m taking a position on what I think is the case for rights.

If you think freedom of speech without abridgement is a right by nature, you need only explain what a right is, what right by nature is, and why the rights you take to be by nature are so.

I can see it for certain forms of property and life if I squint really hard, but Hobbes’ arguments are persuasive for me.

As far as what established the government, well there is the final cause, the moving cause, the material cause and the formal cause.

As far as moving cause of the government, humans gathered and decided to form one by contract.

Typed on phone hope it makes sense.

Why does it matter that a right need be defined by nature or not? Why for you does it come down to parsing the teachings of 17th century philosophers? There are differing philosophical opinions you know? Existentialists believe humans are radically free and existence precedes essence. And I believe that thinking makes sense when considering these rights. Whether you consider these rights to be natural or simply basic human rights that evolved from the human condition, people most certainly feel they are entitled to them. The responses when denied of these rights is to fight or flee (which is a really damn good argument for saying that they are to some degree natural). The point is these rights however you want to box them existed in the minds of nearly all human beings and that predates the Constitution. Again, I don’t believe our government even exists if not for the existence of these rights. The preamble clearly states the purpose of our government is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves”

[Legacy User]

SteelPro, in the Federalist papers, they argue indeed for natural rights.

I’m not talking about intent.

I’m taking a position on what I think is the case for rights.

If you think freedom of speech without abridgement is a right by nature, you need only explain what a right is, what right by nature is, and why the rights you take to be by nature are so.

I can see it for certain forms of property and life if I squint really hard, but Hobbes’ arguments are persuasive for me.

As far as what established the government, well there is the final cause, the moving cause, the material cause and the formal cause.

As far as moving cause of the government, humans gathered and decided to form one by contract.

Typed on phone hope it makes sense.

Why does it matter that a right need be defined by nature or not? Why for you does it come down to parsing the teachings of 17th century philosophers? There are differing philosophical opinions you know? Existentialists believe humans are radically free and existence precedes essence. And I believe that thinking makes sense when considering these rights. Whether you consider these rights to be natural or simply basic human rights that evolved from the human condition, people most certainly feel they are entitled to them. The responses when denied of these rights is to fight or flee (which is a really damn good argument for saying that they are to some degree natural). The point is these rights however you want to box them existed in the minds of nearly all human beings and that predates the Constitution. Again, I don’t believe our government even exists if not for the existence of these rights. The preamble clearly states the purpose of our government is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves”

Bc if not by nature, then the rights are by agreement among men. And that would destroy your position that rights precede the formation of government. Your whole position rests on it. That is why I am exercized about whether these rights are by nature.

Yes, we agree that our government exists for the sake of guaranteeing rights. But if you cannot show that rights are by nature, you are in no position to deny that government establishes the rights it exists to guarantee. Which is what you found scary.