"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". This is an example of:
I've read and understand the man made rights but also consider this, all animals use whatever weapon (claw, fang, hoof) they possess to defend themselves. It's natural to keep and bear arms, whatever they may be.
How is this even a question? Man made the god damn arms in the first place! You don't have a natural right to a mechanical object used to kill things.
That's complete nonsense and hogwash.
Natural, because each of us was born packing heat, and firearms grow wild on trees.
The right to bear arms is in turn from a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In order to keep the natural rights, we need these "man made" rights.
We don't naturally have guns. You show me a tree that grows revolvers and I might change my mind.
Guns are man made the right to keep them is also man-made.
Defending yourself, by any means necessary, is natural.
Just like the right of self defense or the defense of loved ones.. Not up to seem one else.
Someone else. (Damn fat fingers)
Ok, this is actually a tricky question for me. Guns are man-made but the right to defend yourself is natural. So if your question is taken purely at face-value, then my answer would be man-made, but I am really not a fan of harsher gun restrictions:\
I'm in the same boat as you. While I too think they are a man made extension, I think they're an acceptable one.
Guns grow on trees, so natural.
Not beat arms.
Never beat your arms.
They don't read the rest because they then have to start thinking about militias and, more to the point, what it means to be well-ordered.
Well-regulated. We have thought about it, and about militias. More to the point, we actually bothered to look up what the framers meant when they wrote it. Here's what they meant:
Militia: the whole body of the people, under arms.
Well-regulated: effective and lethal in combat. Experienced and well equipped with arms and provisions.
The Second Amendment: protection and codification of a right, not conditional upon the preamble.
The Right of the People: An individual right, not just a collective one.
Doopy, I'm not at all suggesting that you, specifically, have thought about this. but, at the time, serving in the militia was compulsory, and regular training was mandatory. A bunch of private citizens with guns is not the same.
A bunch of private citizens with guns is the DEFINITION of the militia.
It's taken straight from the tip of the quill. If you're a citizen, you are part of the militia.
But not remotely the same as a well-ordered militia.
You keep saying "well-ordered". That is not what is being discussed. We the people, as we are now, are a well-regulated militia. We are mostly very well trained. Many of us are veterans of military and law enforcement, and many more are better.
We are well equipped, and well provisioned. We are numerous and effective in combat. We fulfill the definition of the term in question.
We do not at all constitute a well - regulated militia. There is no widespread training. There are trained individuals, yes, but at least as many untrained. certainly not regulated.
effective in combat? hardly.
Now, we could be better. All the restrictions on automatic weapons and destructive devices should be repealed so we can become proficient as squad machine gunners and tank busters as well as just riflemen.
Armed citizens who find themselves in combat are more effective and more accurate than police. We are effective in combat.
ex-military is trained. ex-police is trained. one may actively seek training. but this is far from universal.
Practice > training. Most gun owners have far more practice than police. Many civilian gun owners have received more training, too.
The statistics speak for themselves, though. Gun-owning citizens are more effective in combat than police.
I know plenty of gun owners who are better than the military requires, and train at nearly special forces levels.
We are a well-regulated militia.
practice *can* be better than training. and I'm sure you do know some very skilled and responsible gun owners. but I'm sure you know some that sit in a blind, drinking beer, and then drunkenly can't hit a thing. If you don't, you're fortunate.
How come nobody reads the full amendment?
"In order to maintain a well regulated militia, the right to beat arms shall not be infringed."
(I think that's the wording)
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.
I take that as IF you are in a militia, then the government cannot restrict your right to a firearm. But if you are not in a militia, you do not have that right. It is a privilege.
But that's just me.
I think the comma after militia separates the two terms meaning being in a militia isn't a requirement.
The commas in the 2A are decorative, not meaningful, but the same is true of the preamble itself. It is not a condition upon which the right hinges.
We are all–every one of us–part of "the militia", too. It was, and is, the whole people.
It is a natural right, because the right to self defense is natural, and the right to prevent an innocent and upstanding person from acquiring the tools for his own defense does not exist.
Okay so how does the right to self defense confer another "natural" right to bear arms? Sure you can defend yourself, but do you have a right to nuclear weapons? To defend yourself of course......the point being that the means are separate
Can you use a nuclear weapon to kill only your assailant? We did extensively exercise our right as a nation to self defense with nuclear arms for 50 years, starting in 1945, by the way.
Doopy that's what I was curious about. The right to self defense might be natural right but I couldn't say whether firearms would be included or a man made extension.
Firearms are just exterior conditions, immaterial to the rights themselves. Firearms are not specifically mentioned in the 2A, not specified in the natural right to self defense with lethal force. If guns exist, they're included. If not, they're not.
A man should always have the right to defend himself
That's a normative statement. You can't derive a descriptive from a normative. Just because we ought not to murder does not mean it does not happen. Just because we ought to have the natural right to bear arms does not mean that the right actually is
If life is valuable (I submit it is) then it is worth defending. If a thing is worth defending, it is worth defending effectively. Arms are required for effective defense, therefore, the right to arms can be derived from the value of life.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure all legal rights are derived from natural ones. That's why we institute law. Further, do violent convicts have this "natural" right?
Nope. The right is not immutable. For the duration of their incarceration or execution, their rights can be suspended.
By definition a natural right is inalienable. If bearing arms is a natural right, then you cannot lose it whatsoever. A convict cannot then lose their right to it simply by way of their crimes, yet you claim they can, even if for a duration of time
No, that's not correct.
First of all, natural rights are not definitionally inalienable nor unalienable. They're just natural. Secondly, you substituted the definition of unalienable for the definition of inalienable. There are crucial differences.
How could there be a natural right to something that doesn't exist naturally?
Lethal force exists naturally. It's at the very least, as much a part of nature as life itself.
So, the right to tools of lethal force is covered in the umbrella of the natural right to self defense with lethal force.
I think those who said natural do not know the difference between the two options
I disagree, and I can defend my case.
Self defense is a natural right.
self defense does not require firearms.
Sometimes it does.
Actually, it does pretty regularly.
self - preservation is a natural right. firearms are a means thereof, but the same could be said for tanks or missiles.
Yes. Fortunately, the text of the 2A clearly covers missiles, and tanks are not regulated.
The framers of the Constitution and I both supported the 2nd Amendment as a means to protect and to codify into law our natural rights as humans to own battlefield tools for killing people, included but not limited to artillery and battleships.
I think they would disagree, but evidence would be anecdotal at best. So, does every human have this right, then? As it is natural, of course...
Every human is born with it.
The founders would not disagree. Privately-owned artillery and battleships were commonplace when the 2A was ratified. They were more common than their publicly-owned counterparts, and the founders were aware of this.
Man made. I think they all are.
We just pretend they aren't. Looking around the world will tell they are not.
If it's man-made, it was never a right in the first place. Our Bill of Rights recognizes and protects rights which are derived from the value of life and liberty. It does not create or grant them.
Doopy, you may already be aware of this, but guns are man-made.
you understand, I had to.
A right can apply to a thing which did not exist at the time of the right's inception. Free speech laws apply to the Internet, which came 200 years after the 1st Amendment, and millennia after the natural right not to be silenced.
I was taking about rights in general. Being a woman in Pakistan provides none. Being a baby girl in China gets you killed half the time.
If only the number was as low as half...
The fact those rights are not recognized does not mean they are not rights, though.
This is true. Doopy, I'm glad we can agree on this!
Unrecognized rights make them not rights.
No, it just makes they who fail to recognize wrong.
I'd argue that not recognizing something as true does not make it false. the world didn't become round one day. I mean, I guess it did, but not due to discovery.
No, it makes them not rights. Ask a woman in Pakistan what her rights are. Then tell me I'm wrong. Sorry, they aren't given nor are they unrecognized. Simply not rights for everyone.
So you are literally claiming that rights can only exist by the recognition of those in power? That Jews had no right not to be gassed or baked to death in the holocaust? That black men had no right to be free?
I reject that out of hand. Rights are what should and shouldn't happen, not what might and mightn't happen. Otherwise we would call them "possibles", wouldn't we?
No Doopy. I'm stating facts.
I agree. and TierasPet, please don't think D and I blindly agree with one another; we come from different sides and agree pretty strongly here.
If people don't have inherent rights, then there is no justification to be upset with a body that...
And your examples were classic. Who had the rights there? Not the ones discriminated against.
...violates those would - be rights. I see what you mean, that a right isn't worth much if it's withheld, but to deny it as being a right is to accept such an attrocity.
Tieras, you're conflating rights and power. Those are very different things.
I don't think that Firefly. I just think rights are given or taken by those in control. We can agree to disagree on this. :)
Doopy, I'll agree to disagree. :)
It sounds as though we may have to.
It was me that liked that last comment Firefly. :)