Human right, not constitutional right

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • hopfdubois

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 10, 2017
    26
    1
    Dubois County
    Hiya. So I've been browsing the forum for some time now, and I've noticed that when referring to the right to keep and bear arms you guys always call this a person's "constitutional right", when it ought to be called, and truly is, a person's natural right. The Constitution does NOT give a person this right, they are born with it, the constitution merely protects it. This is a very important distinction and I felt that I needed to call you guys out on it. Far too often I've seen people on here call it a "constitutional right" and it pisses me off to no end.
    Thanks :ingo:

    EDIT: I meant to say natural right, not human right. I've replaced "human right" with natural right in this post. Thanks fellas!
     
    Last edited:

    EPeter213

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 4, 2016
    1,128
    83
    Floyd/Harrison
    Hiya. So I've been browsing the forum for some time now, and I've noticed that when referring to the right to keep and bear arms you guys always call this a person's "constitutional right", when it ought to be called, and truly is, a person's human right. The Constitution does NOT give a person this right, they are born with it, the constitution merely protects it. This is a very important distinction and I felt that I needed to call you guys out on it. Far too often I've seen people on here call it a "constitutional right" and it pisses me off to no end.
    Thanks :ingo:

    Hello, and welcome to INGO, Hop-

    I lurk and read far more than I post here, and I understand your frustration with this issue. To be fair, though, I have seen many other INGOers make this same point. I think most of those who call it a 'Constitutional Right' realize the inaccuracy, but simply find it less cumbersome to type than 'Constitutionally protected Right'.

    That being said, it is an important distinction, especially when educating those who do not already support the right to bear arms.

    Thank you for voicing your position on this.
     

    Hoosierkav

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Dec 1, 2012
    1,013
    22
    South of Indianapolis
    I guess I'll take the other side, after saying "hi".

    A human right, to me, would be more along the lines of Maslow's hierarchy--a right to have a firearm in a society without any firearms isn't quite the same as a right to food, clothing, or shelter. Should we serve the plight of the aborigines and ship them a bunch of pistols? I have a natural right to my safety, but not to specifics as to how I achieve it.
     

    hopfdubois

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 10, 2017
    26
    1
    Dubois County
    Everyone is born with the right to defend their life, liberty, and property. Maslow's hierarchy and shipping pistols to the aborigines has nothing to do with that.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,142
    113
    Gtown-ish
    We talk about it as a constitutional right, but also as a natural right in terms of self defense. That's kinda like a human right. If that requires a firearm so be it.
     

    halfmileharry

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    65   0   0
    Dec 2, 2010
    11,450
    99
    South of Indy
    Hiya. So I've been browsing the forum for some time now, and I've noticed that when referring to the right to keep and bear arms you guys always call this a person's "constitutional right", when it ought to be called, and truly is, a person's human right. The Constitution does NOT give a person this right, they are born with it, the constitution merely protects it. This is a very important distinction and I felt that I needed to call you guys out on it. Far too often I've seen people on here call it a "constitutional right" and it pisses me off to no end.
    Thanks :ingo:

    I like your attitude.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    We talk about it as a constitutional right, but also as a natural right in terms of self defense. That's kinda like a human right. If that requires a firearm so be it.

    Thank god! I was starting to wonder if someone who get there.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    This is a Venn diagram issue.

    Not every constitutional right is a human/natural right. Not every human/natural right is a constitutional right.

    Warning: the size of your circles may vary.

    (Man, that is true in SO many contexts.)
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Oy vey.

    Now I'm curious about the parameters of this "human right" to keep and bear arms. (Do we need a new acronym - hRKBA.)

    That really can't be true, as stated.

    If it is, then we cannot deny firearms to felons, crazy people, foreigners, and our enemies.

    If it is, then as a society we are obligated to provide a firearm to everyone, including those people I just mentioned.

    Rather, isn't the formulation something like: people have a right to CHOOSE to own a firearm, if they can AFFORD one, and as long as we, as a society, don't think they will misuse it and as long as it isn't too dangerous of a weapon (and as a society, we will choose what is too dangerous).
     

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,007
    77
    Porter County
    Oy vey.

    Now I'm curious about the parameters of this "human right" to keep and bear arms. (Do we need a new acronym - hRKBA.)

    That really can't be true, as stated.

    If it is, then we cannot deny firearms to felons, crazy people, foreigners, and our enemies.

    If it is, then as a society we are obligated to provide a firearm to everyone, including those people I just mentioned.

    Rather, isn't the formulation something like: people have a right to CHOOSE to own a firearm, if they can AFFORD one, and as long as we, as a society, don't think they will misuse it and as long as it isn't too dangerous of a weapon (and as a society, we will choose what is too dangerous).
    Is a right a necessity? I see a right as more that the opportunity exists if you choose to pursue it.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Is a right a necessity? I see a right as more that the opportunity exists if you choose to pursue it.
    Ok. Let's use that formulation. :)

    If there is a hRKBA, can we deny it to felons, crazy people, foreigners and our enemies?

    [ETA: let's set aside the distinction between right and necessity, although we can certainly come back to it if you want. I'm intentionally avoiding it only to stay focused on the issue presented.] :)
     

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    Is a right a necessity? I see a right as more that the opportunity exists if you choose to pursue it.

    I think this is a more appropriate framing; our rights, as recognized by the Constitution, allow one to be free from unreasonable government restriction on the practice of that right. It is not a guarantee that government or someone else will provide it to you.

    It galls me when progressives declare some benefit a "right," such as housing. That cheapens the true meaning of what a right is.

    And, as a practical note, how could government provide some of the Bill of Rights rights to you? Freedom of association, as found to be flowing from the First Amendment? Would they make other citizens be your friend? ;)
     

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,007
    77
    Porter County
    Ok. Let's use that formulation. :)

    If there is a hRKBA, can we deny it to felons, crazy people, foreigners and our enemies?

    [ETA: let's set aside the distinction between right and necessity, although we can certainly come back to it if you want. I'm intentionally avoiding it only to stay focused on the issue presented.] :)
    Felons and Crazy People: If they are locked up, yes. If they are not locked up, then I would say no.
    Foreigners: They should be allowed to KBA
    Enemies: Not sure what you mean by this. A country we are at war with?
     
    Top Bottom