Show of HandsShow of Hands

Posco February 3rd, 2014 4:13pm

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". This is an example of:

22 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

truenuff
02/04/14 2:09 am

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.

RoDe Latinus wordsus
02/04/14 12:23 am

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.

Reply
Zod Above Pugetropolis
02/04/14 12:04 am

Natural, because each of us was born packing heat, and firearms grow wild on trees.

Reply
Daniel17LU Virginia
02/03/14 10:50 pm

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.

Skarface Banned
02/03/14 10:39 pm

We don't naturally have guns. You show me a tree that grows revolvers and I might change my mind.

Reply
Harrison666 Eugene Oregon
02/03/14 10:18 pm

Guns are man made the right to keep them is also man-made.

cowboy All Lives Matter
02/03/14 6:42 pm

Defending yourself, by any means necessary, is natural.

Reply
aladdinsone my own world it seems
02/03/14 6:36 pm

Just like the right of self defense or the defense of loved ones.. Not up to seem one else.

xChocoNilla
02/03/14 6:31 pm

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:\

Posco teach me
02/03/14 9:28 pm

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.

Alkan
02/03/14 3:09 pm

Guns grow on trees, so natural.

Reply
madolesen Nerdfighteria
02/03/14 3:02 pm

*bear arms

Not beat arms.

Never beat your arms.

firefly5 the verse
02/03/14 4:50 pm

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.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 5:09 pm

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.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 5:10 pm

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.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 5:11 pm

The Right of the People: An individual right, not just a collective one.

firefly5 the verse
02/03/14 5:13 pm

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.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 5:14 pm

A bunch of private citizens with guns is the DEFINITION of the militia.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 5:16 pm

It's taken straight from the tip of the quill. If you're a citizen, you are part of the militia.

firefly5 the verse
02/03/14 5:16 pm

But not remotely the same as a well-ordered militia.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 5:19 pm

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.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 5:21 pm

We are well equipped, and well provisioned. We are numerous and effective in combat. We fulfill the definition of the term in question.

firefly5 the verse
02/03/14 5:22 pm

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.

firefly5 the verse
02/03/14 5:23 pm

effective in combat? hardly.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 5:23 pm

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.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 5:24 pm

Armed citizens who find themselves in combat are more effective and more accurate than police. We are effective in combat.

firefly5 the verse
02/03/14 6:02 pm

ex-military is trained. ex-police is trained. one may actively seek training. but this is far from universal.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 6:08 pm

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.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 6:09 pm

I know plenty of gun owners who are better than the military requires, and train at nearly special forces levels.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 6:10 pm

We are a well-regulated militia.

firefly5 the verse
02/03/14 6:12 pm

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.

madolesen Nerdfighteria
02/03/14 3:01 pm

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)

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 3:11 pm

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.

madolesen Nerdfighteria
02/03/14 3:14 pm

Thanks Doopy.

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.

Posco teach me
02/03/14 3:16 pm

I think the comma after militia separates the two terms meaning being in a militia isn't a requirement.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 3:27 pm

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.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 1:03 pm

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.

Reply
jalapeno verdadero
02/03/14 1:33 pm

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

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 2:05 pm

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.

Posco teach me
02/03/14 2:39 pm

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.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 2:45 pm

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.

achilles2340 Still Exploring Space
02/03/14 10:49 am

A man should always have the right to defend himself

jalapeno verdadero
02/03/14 10:59 am

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

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 12:58 pm

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.

jalapeno verdadero
02/03/14 1:05 pm

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?

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 1:09 pm

Nope. The right is not immutable. For the duration of their incarceration or execution, their rights can be suspended.

jalapeno verdadero
02/03/14 1:37 pm

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

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 2:08 pm

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.

kermie gaytopia
02/03/14 10:45 am

How could there be a natural right to something that doesn't exist naturally?

Reply
Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 12:52 pm

Lethal force exists naturally. It's at the very least, as much a part of nature as life itself.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 2:23 pm

So, the right to tools of lethal force is covered in the umbrella of the natural right to self defense with lethal force.

jalapeno verdadero
02/03/14 9:54 am

I think those who said natural do not know the difference between the two options

Reply
Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 12:53 pm

I disagree, and I can defend my case.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 12:59 pm

Self defense is a natural right.

firefly5 the verse
02/03/14 1:04 pm

self defense does not require firearms.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 1:12 pm

Actually, it does pretty regularly.

firefly5 the verse
02/03/14 1:16 pm

self - preservation is a natural right. firearms are a means thereof, but the same could be said for tanks or missiles.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 1:30 pm

Yes. Fortunately, the text of the 2A clearly covers missiles, and tanks are not regulated.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 1:32 pm

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.

jalapeno verdadero
02/03/14 1:40 pm

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...

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 2:11 pm

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.

TierasPet
02/03/14 9:51 am

Man made. I think they all are.

Reply
TierasPet
02/03/14 9:52 am

We just pretend they aren't. Looking around the world will tell they are not.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 1:01 pm

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.

firefly5 the verse
02/03/14 2:23 pm

Doopy, you may already be aware of this, but guns are man-made.

you understand, I had to.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 2:25 pm

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.

TierasPet
02/03/14 4:45 pm

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.

firefly5 the verse
02/03/14 4:48 pm

If only the number was as low as half...

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 5:03 pm

The fact those rights are not recognized does not mean they are not rights, though.

firefly5 the verse
02/03/14 5:05 pm

This is true. Doopy, I'm glad we can agree on this!

TierasPet
02/03/14 5:09 pm

Unrecognized rights make them not rights.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 5:11 pm

No, it just makes they who fail to recognize wrong.

firefly5 the verse
02/03/14 5:15 pm

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.

TierasPet
02/03/14 5:22 pm

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.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 5:27 pm

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?

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 5:29 pm

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?

TierasPet
02/03/14 5:54 pm

No Doopy. I'm stating facts.

firefly5 the verse
02/03/14 5:55 pm

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...

TierasPet
02/03/14 5:57 pm

And your examples were classic. Who had the rights there? Not the ones discriminated against.

firefly5 the verse
02/03/14 6:00 pm

...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.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
02/03/14 6:00 pm

Tieras, you're conflating rights and power. Those are very different things.

TierasPet
02/03/14 6:00 pm

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. :)

TierasPet
02/03/14 6:03 pm

Doopy, I'll agree to disagree. :)

firefly5 the verse
02/03/14 6:04 pm

It sounds as though we may have to.

TierasPet
02/03/14 6:07 pm

It was me that liked that last comment Firefly. :)