Human right, not constitutional right

[hopfdubois]

Okay, so I said human right, I meant natural right, sorry.
What I meant is that every person is born with the right to defend themselves, and that the government shall not strip anyone of that right unless they are serving time after being convicted of a felony through proper judiciary process. I did not mean the right to keep and bear arms as a human right that someone else ought to provide for them, like donating food to African children or something of that sort. I just now realized the issue with me using human right instead of natural right, my apologies.

 

[T.Lex]

What I meant is that every person is born with the right to defend themselves, and that the government shall not strip anyone of that right unless they are serving time after being convicted of a felony through proper judiciary process.

If we accept that natural rights emanate from the Creator, where does this "unless...." part come from?

 

[jamil]

If we accept that natural rights emanate from the Creator, where does this "unless...." part come from?

Well, not that I agree about the "creator" part, but in our agreement to live peacefully in society, part of that is the consequences we agree to impose through our representatives, on those who break the peace.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, not that I agree about the "creator" part, but in our agreement to live peacefully in society, part of that is the consequences we agree to impose through our representatives, on those who break the peace.

Right - social compact and all that.

But that doesn't really answer the question, or are you saying that natural rights can be defined by consensus? What would then give them legitimacy, is the consensus?

 

[jamil]

Right - social compact and all that.

But that doesn't really answer the question, or are you saying that natural rights can be defined by consensus? What would then give them legitimacy, is the consensus?

Not defined by consensus. Ceded. By agreeing to remain a citizen, I cede some of my natural rights. For example, if you steal from me, I cede my right to take my **** back from you, by force if necessary, to the criminal justice system.

 

[Twangbanger]

Natural, human, whatever...I'm sticking with "Constitutional, myself. The term does not imply that other bases for the right do not exist. What it does allow for, is simple, direct argument of the principle, with minimal recourse to the sort of mystical-theological arcana which were on such ample display in other well-trodden threads on this topic. I lost interest in late-night dorm-room philosophical debates long ago.

I prefer to burn down my liberal opponents with simple phrases, like "because Heller," then eat another potato chip and watch them fume.

 

[T.Lex]

Not defined by consensus. Ceded. By agreeing to remain a citizen, I cede some of my natural rights.

Interesting, this ceding thing. What if someone wants out of the agreement?

Maybe the sovereign citizens are right? That's what you're saying, according to Hough's Laws of Syllogisms.

 

[jamil]

Interesting, this ceding thing. What if someone wants out of the agreement?

Maybe the sovereign citizens are right? That's what you're saying, according to Hough's Laws of Syllogisms.

You'll have to explain that leap in detail.

 

[T.Lex]

You'll have to explain that leap in detail.

Ask Hough. He's the Hoff of syllogisms around here.

 

[jamil]

Okay.

 

[DRob]

Every right, as we often refer to, is saddled with responsibility.

 

[jamil]

Interesting, this ceding thing. What if someone wants out of the agreement?

Maybe the sovereign citizens are right? That's what you're saying, according to Hough's Laws of Syllogisms.

You'll have to explain that leap in detail.

Ask Hough. He's the Hoff of syllogisms around here.

Okay.

Well, as I suspected, Hough doesn't seem to want to explain how you arrived at your destination. I think you're gonna have to do it. So how do you get to "sovereign citizen" from where I left off?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Right - social compact and all that.

But that doesn't really answer the question, or are you saying that natural rights can be defined by consensus? What would then give them legitimacy, is the consensus?

Defined by concensus! Natural rights aren't so natural then.

So, what you are saying, is that this is just more of the same of the self-important Libertarian purity crap.

Man, I miss the INGOtarians some days. Sometimes I wish I hadn't driven them off, but I know it was bound to happen one questions started being asked. They run like Andy Horning.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

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

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

Calling something a Constitutional Right is not denying that it is a Natural Rights, especially the RKBA. Distinction without difference for our topic.

 

[SSGSAD]

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

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

The Constitution, protects, OUR GOD Given rights .....

PROBLEM is, not everyone believes in GOD !!!!!

I pray for those people EVERYDAY !!!!!

 

[jamil]

Defined by concensus! Natural rights aren't so natural then.

So, what you are saying, is that this is just more of the same of the self-important Libertarian purity crap.

Man, I miss the INGOtarians some days. Sometimes I wish I hadn't driven them off, but I know it was bound to happen one questions started being asked. They run like Andy Horning.

Well, again, natural rights aren't *defined* by consensus, they're agreed to be protected or not, by consensus. I'll say it that way since T.Lex seemed to have misunderstood it the other way.

How can you be so certain of your own importance in the world? They're not all gone. ATM is still around. Steve still drives by occasionally. Aside from the purity-signaling, I tihnk it would be good to have that contingency back to join in some of these discussions?

 

[ATM]

Step right up, folks, Ol' Uncle Kirk is giving driving lessons (and libertarian starwood points will surely be awarded to those who endure the course).

 

[Libertarian01]

A "right" as I see it, is our intellectual acknowledgement of a sentient organisms need to try to fulfill certain biological functions in order to survive.

Every sentient organism needs to feed, ergo every sentient organism as the "right" to try to feed. Note that feeding is NOT guaranteed, only the "right" to try to do so.

On the other hand, the possible "food" (aka: prey) also has a right to try to survive, and thus may either evade the predator and/or fight back. Note that it may not succeed, but we acknowledge that it is following its basic need to survive, thus giving this action the title of a "right."

Every sentient organism must express itself. Whether this is vocal or through other means, we need to express our wants, desires, and emotions. For example, say that I strap you into a chair and force you to watch someone being tortured across the room from you. Even though you are not physically suffering and in no pain, you would feel the need to express yourself in some way. Yelling at the torturer to stop, crying, making a face, whatever it is a human being would need to communicate its revulsion (or appreciation) in some manner. I mention this because some might claim that we don't have certain biological needs, such as freedom of speech, whereas I believe we do.

As all of our rights are based upon biological needs, I generally think of them as "natural" rights, the only type of "right" we have. Some believe that we were created by a divine being, and call them "divine" rights. Even if that is true, which I do not argue against, the burden of biological needs our creator gave us are natural, and thus "natural" rights I come back to.

One flaw exists in our desire for rights, it is that we strive to live together with one another in harmony and peace (most of us anyway.) As such, the primary function of government is to suppress everyone's rights to the minimal possible degree in order for everyone to enjoy the maximum amount of their rights (aka: freedoms) possible. For example, we pass laws to allow people to enjoy life by playing music (their right), but we put minimal (hopefully) restrictions on when and/or how load the music can be played in order to protect the neighbors rights. This is the difference between the animal world and the civilized world. In nature the strongest does what it wants until it is no longer strongest. In society, the law is placed above all in order to equalize the populace by infringing the minimal amount possible, at least ideally, while maximizing the protection of the rights of all.

So where does the RTKABA come in? As every living thing as the right to try to survive, we know that some humans are unwilling to respect the rights of others, and these humans may be stronger than others. The firearm is a tool of equalizing force. A 98 pound woman can defend herself against 350 pound man with a firearm. Therefore we acknowledge the firearms important and critical importance as an equalizer of force, whether that be from another lone human being, a group of humans, or simply a wild animal. But what kind of weapon is she allowed to possess? I would argue that she may have any weapon available that she can be reasonably expect to control the damage inflicted by said weapon. This would rule out nuclear or biological weapons as the damage cannot be controlled. Many, but not all, chemical weapons would also be excluded. However, I would have no problem with a human being who owned a howitzer so long as they could control the damage inflicted. So folks could own and fire artillery on any property that they own or are allowed to blast away on.

Our Constitution recognizes these preexisting rights and promises to do protect those rights. That is why to my thinking it is so very critical to put the protection of rights above safety, so as not to allow the back door on undermining our freedoms and liberties. Alas, we have already stumbled down this slippery slope. Justice Jackson erred when he declared that the Constitution "There is a danger that...it will convert the Constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." As I see it the Constitution does vow to protect rights I am willing to kill to protect, and also die to protect. They are that important.

Regards,

Doug

 

[KLB]

The Constitution, protects, OUR GOD Given rights .....

PROBLEM is, not everyone believes in GOD !!!!!

I pray for those people EVERYDAY !!!!!

Can you quote that part for me?

 

[KLB]

Well, again, natural rights aren't *defined* by consensus, they're agreed to be protected or not, by consensus. I'll say it that way since T.Lex seemed to have misunderstood it the other way.

How can you be so certain of your own importance in the world? They're not all gone. ATM is still around. Steve still drives by occasionally. Aside from the purity-signaling, I tihnk it would be good to have that contingency back to join in some of these discussions?

Kind of like this little tidbit?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.