Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I feel that this issue is more about what sort of society we want for ourselves, than an issue of rights. Most of us accept that people have the right to "bear arms" because it so stated in a constitutional amendment. But we also, usually, accept that rights can be regulated by the state. The issue I think is whether we want to live in a throwback state where personal security is guaranteed by ourselves as bearers of weapons, or as employers of bodyguards, or whether we want to finance a professional class of security people.
That's like Chirack's history of abortion is important. Here in Philadelphia the history of the a professional police department is instructive of your point. In the 18th and early 19th century Philadelphia was protected by elected ward constables. The wards which were dominated by one ethnic group or another needless to say conducted their enforcement activities in line with local prejudices. In 1844 a series of anti-catholic riots demonstrated the utter inability of localized law enforcement to guarantee the peace of the citizenry in any manner approaching equal protection under the law. As a result the state legislature required the establishment of police departments doing way with elected partisan and citizen based law enforcement.
People are endowed with RIGHTS from their Creator.
Government was instituted to SECURE those endowed rights.
Government grants PRIVILEGES, often mistakenly called "rights".
Government cannot tax protected rights, but it can tax privileges it bestows.
Government cannot expand endowed rights, only expand privileges.
Under the republican form of government, the American people are sovereign.
But those U.S. citizens under the constitutionally limited indirect democracy are subjects, obligated to perform MANDATORY civic duties.
Well 150 years ago the nation severely restricted the rights of one group of humans to own another. Fifty years ago we restricted the rights of any group of citizens to deny the power to discriminate against another and today we are attempting to restrict that right even further. So your question boils down to a half full/half empty argument. By "expanding" rights we also restrict the rights other competing rights, in the case of abortion the right of the some portion of society from dictating the reproductive rights of women - by the way, at no time in the nations history did the "unborn" have rights.
Your argument doesn't take into account that when it comes to the 2nd amendment there is no offsetting expansion of other rights.
By the way, at no point in the nations history, did the unborn not have rights, until very recently because only a certain portion of society has said it's first breath, a human being is not a being. That is of course, only until someone carrying an unborn child is killed and then the stops come out and the very same people promoting abortion rights change and want their measure for the unborn. Also, in the case of abortion, it was not a question of some portion of society dictating anything, society dictated it. Saying a portion dictated anything implied there was no law against abortion when the facts are there for anyone to know, there was a law and thus it was not the purview of a few or certain portion of society, the law represented all society.
Your argument doesn't take into account that when it comes to the 2nd amendment there is no offsetting expansion of other rights.
Well I suppose that if we insist on arguing that our fellow citizens have no right to keep firearms out of the hands of those who have forfeited their right to possess them, I suppose you would be right but that is a risible argument. Now as a gun owner who has been granted the right to carry that weapon in a concealed manner on or about my person I would think that it should be obvious that I believe in the individual right to keep and bare arms, but I cannot discern any concomitant right to manufacture or sell any type of weapon for that purpose.
Quote:
By the way, at no point in the nations history, did the unborn not have rights, until very recently because only a certain portion of society has said it's first breath, a human being is not a being.
A rather specious argument considering that the Framers of the Constitution didn't grant any rights to large segments of the population be they a second or seventy. That aside the historical record of abortion up until the mid 19th century appears to contradict your assertion.
UNTIL the last third of the nineteenth century, when it was criminalized state by state across the land, abortion was legal before "quickening" (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy). Colonial home medical guides gave recipes for "bringing on the menses" with herbs that could be grown in one's garden or easily found in the woods. By the mid eighteenth century commercial preparations were so widely available that they had inspired their own euphemism ("taking the trade"). Unfortunately, these drugs were often fatal. The first statutes regulating abortion, passed in the 1820s and 1830s, were actually poison-control laws: the sale of commercial abortifacients was banned, but abortion per se was not. The laws made little difference. By the 1840s the abortion business -- including the sale of illegal drugs, which were widely advertised in the popular press -- was booming. The most famous practitioner, Madame Restell, openly provided abortion services for thirty-five years, with offices in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia and traveling salespeople touting her "Female Monthly Pills."
I believe the creators of the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not mention the individual right to keep and bear arms as it was assumed that all adult males had an inherent right to be armed. The Amendment specifically mentions the Militia, as forming a Militia was a specific duty required of all male citizens and included bringing your own firearms. It was assumed a free citizen was armed as it was their civic duty and Militias were requires to limit the development of a tyrannical central government.
That assumed right to be armed was severely abused before during and after the Civil War by eliminating the right to people of color, Indians, in some places Chinese and indentured servants of their right to be armed. The right to be armed only applied to proper people. Mostly white gangs like the KKK.
We seem to be divided into people that wish violence would go away if there were no guns or knives. Our history with gun prohibition shows that violence will not go away most are disarmed because the remainder armed people will continue to bring violence to the disarmed. The other sector of our people think violence is inevitable no matter where they might be so they demand to be able to keep and carry whatever weapons they deem necessary to protect themselves. These people do not believe the government either should or is capable of protecting the individual from violence. So far history gives far more credence to the latter point of view.
Although we have eliminated the need for a local militia for political freedom (this is definitely debatable) by having the State Militias changed to National Guard units that are trained, armed and used by the central government, with or without state approval, we have not implemented police authority sufficient to end violent crime on the street or in people’s homes or businesses. Thus the physical reality of violence and the individual duty to protect oneself still exists. Thus individual law abiding citizens have the right to be armed with whatever devices they deem necessary.
What we have done is to try to eliminate personal individual responsibility and duty for a person to protect themselves, their families and even complete strangers. Unfortunately we are unwilling to replace self protection with government protection. We even declare “gun free” places and still do not protect those places and people from violence. That is dereliction of duty by the government and the society.
We should do something to restrict, as much as possible, the ability of criminals and insane people from “keeping and bearing arms” as they have proved they are unable to comply with the law or reasonable standards of behavior and responsibility. None of the proposed laws show any ability to do this except for the partially effective background checks. Most of these fail because many criminals and most of the insane are not listed. I think the background checks should be made more effective or eliminated. I also believe the existing restrictions on the types of weapons, guns or knives, law abiding sane people own is their decision, not the governments’.
Additionally the government being unable to predict the exact circumstances of a criminal confrontation should not restrict the citizens’ response to the threat by demanding they retreat from an assault. Citizens should make the decision run or to respond to violence with violence as the circumstance warrants. If this results in more fights so be it.
What we have done is to try to eliminate personal individual responsibility and duty for a person to protect themselves, their families and even complete strangers. Unfortunately we are unwilling to replace self protection with government protection. We even declare “gun free†places and still do not protect those places and people from violence. That is dereliction of duty by the government and the society.
Who is this we that refer to? The Court in Heller firmly affirmed the right to self-protection something that is and has been recognized by every state statute which has codified the exception to criminal homicide for the purpose of self-defense. However, what we have long recognize is that individuals or groups of individuals all too often care very little, if at all, about the Constitutional protections afforded to individuals suspected of committing criminal acts and as a result have established state actors to enforce our laws. If that effectively eliminates the personal responsibility for self-protection, a specious argument at best, so be it.
I'd like to add an unscientific, yet I believe overlooked benefit to the discussion on concealed carry. I have always had guns, ever since I can remember, but never bothered getting a concealed carry permit until I relocated to an unfamiliar area in 2006. Ever since then, I have come to the realization that ever since I got that card and started wearing my sidearm as part of my wardrobe, I have become a much more humble and even more polite person. I recognize the fact that I am prepared to inflict severe damage to someone who may intend to do me or my family harm, and because of that, I purposely try to be nice to everyone. You give up your 'right' to have a temper or short fuse when you carry. You give up your 'right' to be pissed off in traffic. Anyone with a permit can tell you, it wouldn't take much to lose that priviledge, so you need to mind your manners. I think a lot of non-carriers tend to generalize those that carry as vigilante wannabes. I have yet to meet one.
No, not another gun control thread but it is related.
We've expanded the freedom of speech to include burning flags and a host of other activities that were never included in the Constitution or The Bill of Rights. Abortion has become a right. Go through the list of "rights" and they are all expanded through time. There are some restrictions but in the balance, the rights are greatly expanded from anything envisioned when the founding documents were drafted. All except one.
Some of the rights expanded over time have resulted in the deaths of many people. According to a very large percentage of people in the US, the right to have an abortion has killed uncountable numbers of human beings yet when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, somehow certain people want to use the standards in place hundreds of years ago to decide the limits on those rights.
How many activities taken for granted today and protected as rights were never described in years long past, yet evolution of the founding documents is cited as a reason for the expansion of rights to cover those activities?
The expansion of some of the rights to cover certain activities can be seen as for the common good unless you limit who can be considered as part of the common good. When those deciding what is a right and what is not also decide who is part of the common good, the ends justify the means.
So what social mechanism allows such a disparity between what rights are going to be expanded and what rights will be restricted?
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written at a time when only [white] property owners had any say in society, yet to this day many (most) Americans view the Constitution as if they were the direct words from God himself. While I do not believe the Constitution should be amended on every whim, I do think it should be amended to our more current society. The Supreme Court is actually the Law of our land, not the Constitution, but their decisions are based around the framework of the Constitution.
As for the 2nd Amendment; the amendment specifically gives this right to a well regulated militia, not to the average Joe Blow "just because I can". The reason why we can now own personal guns "because I can" is because of two Supreme Court rulings, both 100 years or so apart from each other, that ruled that the language of the 2nd Amendment does not grant the police force the right to bear arms,and that 2nd Amendment prohibits having an armed police force in the U.S., so in order to allow for an armed police force in the U.S., the Supreme Court ruled that 2nd Amendment extend to everyone in both cases.
So our current right to bear arms is based on two Supreme Court rulings, and not the Constitution itself.
My mother in law lived in a country that started out as a pretty free country. Then thru activism, most of their rights were taken away one by one. They had the right to have guns but eventually it was taken away too. The government would protect you they said.
Then suddenly the government turned on its people. Everyone was a terrorist. My mother in laws fammily which numbered in the hundreds of relatives was wiped out. Cant find a single relative. My mother in law lucked out and excaped. Her fammily was highly responcible for the gun ban. they did lots activism to get guns banned. Lots of good it did them. They were line up and killed one by one and there was nothing they could do about it.
Today she owns lots of guns and knows how to use them.
So the Patriot Act, Stop & Frisk, warrantless wiretaps, etc., etc., have been expanding Americans rights?
Furthermore, the right to bear arms is the only right that directly leads to the murders of thousands in America every year - perhaps it needs some restricting. And don't try to say abortion does the same because the law says that terminating a fetus is legal and not the same as killing a fully-formed living and breathing human.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
