Pre-convention discussion: bill of rights, right to keep and bear arms

[Goshin]

Actually its not. It is the difference between believing in some quaint convention from antiquity or accepting what is real and true. People get their rights from a very sikmple pragmatic real world process. Enough people demand that a certain behavior be a RIGHT and then they exert enough power or influence or force upon government to recognize that behavior and protect it as a RIGHT.

That is simply the way it is. All the other trappings are just fanciful conventions to oppose the divine right of kings which died a sure death a very long time ago.

So tell me something.... where does protections for the rights of small minorities come in, if we're democratically deciding based on some obscure "when enough people demand..."


How many is enough? Is it okay for the 90% to oppress the 10%? If not, why not...

 

[Goshin]

Maybe something like:

This union shall never be construed to have any powers to hinder, limit, or restrict in any way the possession, use, sale, or transfer of weapons by the people of the member states. Any power to do so is retained by the sovereign member states.

yeah, because that has worked out SO well for the USA right?


Because the Fedgov NEVER violates Section 8 or Amendments 9 and 10....


(/irony)

 

[haymarket]

So tell me something.... where does protections for the rights of small minorities come in, if we're democratically deciding based on some obscure "when enough people demand..."


How many is enough? Is it okay for the 90% to oppress the 10%? If not, why not...

It comes from several sources including the Constitution, the government which enforces and guards it, the will of the people who contrary to what seems to be the essence of your suspicion - are not always willing to sell out the interests of minorities.

I have no idea what you mean by OPPRESS. Can you clarify that please?

 

[Goshin]

It comes from several sources including the Constitution, the government which enforces and guards it, the will of the people who contrary to what seems to be the essence of your suspicion - are not always willing to sell out the interests of minorities.

I have no idea what you mean by OPPRESS. Can you clarify that please?

Oppress. Repress. Impose unjustly. Deny basic rights to. Suppress their cultural or political views or what they consider essential liberty.

 

[AlbqOwl]

That would be where we disagree. There is a reason why most of the BoR has been incorporated against the States.... otherwise we end up with a patchwork of states (and maybe counties and cities) where your fundamental rights differ dramatically even though it is the same country.


Would you support severe restrictions on free speech in Austin Texas? The death penalty for abortion in Alabama? What if South Carolina decided to make Protestant Christianity the state religion and repress all others?


See my point?

Do you have so little confidence in the common sense of people left to organize the society they wish to have and govern themselves? Mexico and Canada both allowed slavery in their historic past and both abolished slavery without a civil war or any other violence. The USA would almost certainly have done so also had there been no secession and no Civil War and it would have done so with far less trauma to the slaves themselves and without bloodshed. A number of states or regions had strict authoritarian theocracies when the original Constitution was ratified, and every one had voluntarily dissolved itself by the end of the Eighteenth century.

A free people will make mistakes, but will generally settle on the best society that is agreeable to those who populate it. And a Constitution that recognizes and secures the unalienable rights of the people will make it possible to legally deal with those who would violate those rights when the citizens have not voluntarily relinquished them. To demand that everybody think alike, behave the same, adopt the same uniform laws throughout the land, is to reject the entire concept of self governance.

 

[haymarket]

Oppress. Repress. Impose unjustly. Deny basic rights to. Suppress their cultural or political views or what they consider essential liberty.

And why does oppression of minorities somehow magically come with a rejection of the fantasy of natural rights from God or nature?

In fact, the opposite is historical fact as the Founders stated a belief in natural rights but oppressed the hell out of minorities. A whole lot of supposed good natural rights did them for a very very long time in American history.

 

[Goshin]

Do you have so little confidence in the common sense of people left to organize the society they wish to have and govern themselves? Mexico and Canada both allowed slavery in their historic past and both abolished slavery without a civil war or any other violence. The USA would almost certainly have done so also had there been no secession and no Civil War and it would have done so with far less trauma to the slaves themselves and without bloodshed. A number of states or regions had strict authoritarian theocracies when the original Constitution was ratified, and every one had voluntarily dissolved itself by the end of the Eighteenth century.

A free people will make mistakes, but will generally settle on the best society that is agreeable to those who populate it. And a Constitution that recognizes and secures the unalienable rights of the people will make it possible to legally deal with those who would violate those rights when the citizens have not voluntarily relinquished them. To demand that everybody think alike, behave the same, adopt the same uniform laws throughout the land, is to reject the entire concept of self governance.

We could apply what you said to the national level as well. Do you not trust The People to do this on that scale?

If not, then why do you trust them to do it on a State scale or a local scale?



When it took weeks of travel to go from Charleston to Boston, and few people traveled or moved to another state, it didn't matter so much that the several States were almost like autonomous little countries.


Today, people travel all over the USA in hours, and travel is common. Moving to other states is common.


Having VERY different laws abridging fundamental rights in different states would affect far more people now, and drastically complicate travel and moving.... well actually it already does in many ways.


To paraphrase from The Patriot: "Am I to trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 300 tyrants one mile away?" Meaning State gov's can be as stupid and oppressive as the Fed, and local gov's are well known for corruption and nepotism and cronyism in so many places....

 

[Goshin]

And why does oppression of minorities somehow magically come with a rejection of the fantasy of natural rights from God or nature?

In fact, the opposite is historical fact as the Founders stated a belief in natural rights but oppressed the hell out of minorities. A whole lot of supposed good natural rights did them for a very very long time in American history.

that was a problem in application of the principle to ALL equally, not a fundamental flaw of the principle itself.


Rights that are subject to the whim of the majority are not rights, they are privileges that can be taken away as easily as they were granted.


That's where the trouble starts... If Natural rights is a myth, it is a mighty useful myth and one that should be encouraged... your rights are far more secure if most believe them Unalienable than if most believe them "mere social constructs".


But maybe you don't feel the people NEED a solid set of fundamental rights? Maybe that just gets in the way of social engineering?

 

[Nilly]

OK. YOU go live somewhere that declines to recognize basic human rights and let us know how that goes for ya. I hear Iran is nice this time of year.

I mean holy Hannah, is it not fricken' OBVIOUS how much better off we are when fundamental human rights are recognized and accepted as inalienable??

It's like arguing about whether spring water is better than drinking from a sewer pipe.

You can recognize basic human rights without believing they are natural or inherent. Rights arise out of interaction with others in society, therefore it is up to society to define them. We decide what fundamental rights are.

 

[Goshin]

You can recognize basic human rights without believing they are natural or inherent. Rights arise out of interaction with others in society, therefore it is up to society to define them. We decide what fundamental rights are.

How? Simple majority?

Then 51% can choose to oppress the 49%....

 

[haymarket]

that was a problem in application of the principle to ALL equally, not a fundamental flaw of the principle itself.

The so called principle is not worth the utilitarian value of a common five pound bag of garden manure is it is not followed by society and those who are entrusted with power to run it.

Rights that are subject to the whim of the majority are not rights, they are privileges that can be taken away as easily as they were granted.

Goshin - you are not some idealist who lives in castles in the sky. You know damn well that the rights of anybody can be changed if there is enough effort expended to do so and can be taken away if there is impetus to do so. No flowery sounding principle is going to stop that. No belief in gods in the sky dispensing rights like so much Halloween candy to costumed toddlers is going to change that either.

So lets just flush all this natural rights belief nonsense and concentrate on reality please.

 

[haymarket]

How? Simple majority?

Then 51% can choose to oppress the 49%....

News bulletin my friend: a whole lot less than 51% can control and oppress others in our society right today providing they control power. And no flowery belief in natural rights stops them.

 

[Goshin]

The so called principle is not worth the utilitarian value of a common five pound bag of garden manure is it is not followed by society and those who are entrusted with power to run it.



Goshin - you are not some idealist who lives in castles in the sky. You know damn well that the rights of anybody can be changed if there is enough effort expended to do so and can be taken away if there is impetus to do so. No flowery sounding principle is going to stop that. No belief in gods in the sky dispensing rights like so much Halloween candy to costumed toddlers is going to change that either.

So lets just flush all this natural rights belief nonsense and concentrate on reality please.

Rights that are widely believed to be fundamental, inherent to the human condition, natural, or naturally-arising-from-the-needs-of-humanity are less likely to be overturned on a whim than "social constructs".


Therefore if it is a myth, it is a useful one and should be encouraged.

 

[Goshin]

News bulletin my friend: a whole lot less than 51% can control and oppress others in our society right today providing they control power. And no flowery belief in natural rights stops them.

Well then why bother with a gorram Constitution in the first place...

 

[haymarket]

Rights that are widely believed to be fundamental, inherent to the human condition, natural, or naturally-arising-from-the-needs-of-humanity are less likely to be overturned on a whim than "social constructs".


Therefore if it is a myth, it is a useful one and should be encouraged.

There is little that is not physical that is part of the human condition - whatever the heck that is.

And it is a myth which needs to be crushed and flushed as a convention of the 17th and 18th centuries which was central to opposing the diving right of kings and is no longer useful nor necessary in the year 2014.

btw Goshin - got plans for the 17th? I plan on being in Erebor. How about you?

 

[haymarket]

Well then why bother with a gorram Constitution in the first place...

Because that is our best hope and only chance to keep our darker angels reigned in.

 

[Goshin]

Because that is our best hope and only chance to keep our darker angels reigned in.

Then stop using language that indicates concession to the corruption of our founding principles, huh?

News bulletin my friend: a whole lot less than 51% can control and oppress others in our society right today providing they control power. And no flowery belief in natural rights stops them.

 

[haymarket]

Then stop using language that indicates concession to the corruption of our founding principles, huh?

I do not get what you mean by that.

In fact, the best defense we can have to keep our rights is the acceptance by all that we only have rights because we worked so damn hard for them and need to be vigilant every moment to preserve them from being taken away.

 

[Goshin]

I do not get what you mean by that.

In fact, the best defense we can have to keep our rights is the acceptance by all that we only have rights because we worked so damn hard for them and need to be vigilant every moment to preserve them from being taken away.

You finally said something I can more or less agree with.


But we need to agree that that 51% do not get to define "fundamental rights that SHOULD not be alienated" for the 49%.... it should take a lot more than a simple majority to define it.

 

[haymarket]

You finally said something I can more or less agree with.


But we need to agree that that 51% do not get to define "fundamental rights that SHOULD not be alienated" for the 49%.... it should take a lot more than a simple majority to define it.

oaky - lets go with that.... what do you propose?

 

[Nilly]

Rights that are widely believed to be fundamental, inherent to the human condition, natural, or naturally-arising-from-the-needs-of-humanity are less likely to be overturned on a whim than "social constructs".

Therefore if it is a myth, it is a useful one and should be encouraged.

Rights have to be acknowledged by another entity (whether that be a person, a society, or a god) to exist, so I'm not sure how they can be anything other than social constructs.

How?

That's what we're here to codify and decide. The checks and balances that take place so that the rights we define do arise from the will of the people, and will continue to in the future.

 

[Master PO]

Natural/fundamental or Martian, I don't care what you call it.... I'm not recognizing any government that doesn't recognize those rights, and the rights that logically flow from same.

but a problem we face is people want to say, civil rights/legal rights/ human rights /fundamental rights, and this creates confusion.

all the Constitution states is natural rights, and privileges and immunities.

civil rights/ legal rights, ....are privileges and immunities .

 

[PirateMk1]

I don't see where I gave room for exceptions.

This thread is about the text of the amendment itself, and as you can see I very clearly did not include anything about WMDs in the text of the Amendment.

Everything you're talking about revolves around the range and scope of the right I'm talking about. SCUTUS will need to chime in as it did with the Heller decision and inform everyone that WMDs are the equivalent of yelling 'fire' in a theater and thus are beyond the right to keep and bear arms.

The WMD issue is a simple matter. My wording of the text is to ward against incremental erosion through assault-weapon bans, machine gun bans, NICS checks, the need to have a permit, etc.

Once you call something an "exception", you open the door to all "exceptions" and in a couple hundred years the right is whittled down to single-shot shotguns strictly for sport.

You misread. That was the amendment I proposed to counter yours. I like yours but I don't want courts interpreting much if any of it. I will modify the wording to be "The sole exception shall be..." I don't want any wiggle room. The other modification will be "In any case personal arms types in use by militaries past present or future shall not be restricted or regulated or infringed in any way except by being convicted in trial by jury for crimes committed requiring incarceration, and the said restrictions only for the duration of said incarceration."

 

[Goshin]

oaky - lets go with that.... what do you propose?

Hahahaha... excellent question.


Give me a minute to switch from "argue against" to "provide solution". Different mindset.

 

[PirateMk1]

but a problem we face is people want to say, civil rights/legal rights/ human rights /fundamental rights, and this creates confusion.

all the Constitution states is natural rights, and privileges and immunities.

civil rights/ legal rights, ....are privileges and immunities .

I would go with sovereign rights which encompass ALL rights. That satisfies everyone and their particular interpretation of rights, because people tend to know what sovereignty is which is complete autonomy essentially. I think that is the compromise in language we need and also reinforces the autonomous aspects of the human condition which is what we want. I don't think people want to be wards or drones of the state.