Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Jedidiah]

See I have a problem with folks who say they are against guns but want cops and the government to have guns, namely they aren't anti gun they just want gun ownership to be in very specific hands.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Well we know that all police and government agencies are completely trustworthy.

[Jedidiah]

Yes, it seems to me that the courts have carved out lots of exceptions to what the Constitutions says, that are really un-Constitutional. And not just with the 2nd Amendment. In the 20th century, SCOTUS carved out exceptions for when its okay for the government to do what the Constitution seems clearly to prohibit, e.g. if the government has a "rational basis" for, or a "compelling interest" in, having the law. When the 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law", what kind of interpreting is it to say that that means "Congress shall make no law unless Congress shall be sufficiently interested in making such law"? Or how do they maintain with a straight face that compulsory military service is not involuntary servitude (13th Amendment)? Or when SCOTUS holds that regulation of most things that are not even commerce is regulation of interstate commerce. Or that the 4th Amendment can be ignored if we just label the search an "administrative search". They have lost much credibility of being a good interpreter of the Constitution. The vast majority of what the U.S. federal government does is unconstitutional, which implies that SCOTUS has been either complicit in permitting it or incompetent to prevent it.

Your argument is that the very government that is infringing on the right is qualified to say that it isn't infringing on our right. I can't wait to see how your respond when that government decides that preachers can't speak out against homosexuality in the church like they did in Canada.

Yes the government does not seem to respect the Constitution except where it is convenient.

[RumTumTugger]

Not great, but better that than being wholly defenseless. Firing a gun is not exactly difficult.

I can testify to that. but a little training and knowledge about the gun you are using will help with efficiency I ought to know first rifle my brother let me go target shooting with was a bolt action(I think that is what it was called i had to cock it to cycle the bullets into the chamber every time I shot it. Next Gun wasn't and my brother forgot to tell me the difference so I did the same thing I did with the first Gun and ended up ejecting half the bullets. I had some nice groupings but less shots

as my brother told me I had about 95% accuracy and 50% efficiency

[Joel]

Why, does the Constitution, i.e. the authors thereof, determine what is a natural right, and what is not?

It doesn't.

The Constitution isn't a divine writing. It was written by men.

If it is anything, it's a compact. The question of its interpretation is who are the parties and to what obligations did they consent.

I think this leads into questions about what exactly are inalienable rights

Inalienable means not able to be given away or otherwise surrendered. Now if you own a table, your right to that table is alienable in the sense that you can "alien" it--that is, you can transfer it away to someone else. But your right in general to justly acquire property and keep and use and transfer it, is not alienable. Just as your right in general to not be murdered or enslaved is inalienable.

The idea of inalienable rights was in contrast to political theorists like Thomas Hobbes who argued that rulers should have absolute power, on the grounds that a people without a government would consent to set up a ruler in the first place and transfer to that ruler all their rights. Then the ruler would have absolute power over them from then on. Others argued for absolutism for existing states, such as France or Spain, that the state held everyone's rights, claiming the people had given them all up.

is the right to a gun really a right to "property"?

Of course. It's a question of ownership.

Is the right to property itself truly an inalienable right.

As above, the right to the article itself is alienable (the owner can sell or gift it), but the right to property is not. That is, without the owner's consent, taking the article is theft. The owner can consent to transfer the article, but it makes no sense to say the owner can transfer away the truth that taking his property without his consent is theft.

And if the right to property is truly an inalienable right, why does the government make the right to the property ownership of guns inalienable, but not the right to, say, heroin, or anthrax, inalienable.

If you are talking about the Constitution, the 9th Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The federal government has no delegated authority to pass laws restricting the possession of heroin, etc. Any such existing federal statutes are unconstitutional, thus illegal. And that is independent of the question of whether they are rights.

Is it a right derived from the Bible? From God? From all people, or only certain people?

Most advocates argue that rights arise from human nature.

[Adrift]

If it is anything, it's a compact. The question of its interpretation is who are the parties and to what obligations did they consent.

If you're born into a nation, it seems that most citizens don't intentionally consent, they just know no other way.

Inalienable means not able to be given away or otherwise surrendered.

According to who, and by what authority?

The idea of inalienable rights was in contrast to political theorists like Thomas Hobbes who argued that rulers should have absolute power, on the grounds that a people without a government would consent to set up a ruler in the first place and transfer to that ruler all their rights. Then the ruler would have absolute power over them from then on. Others argued for absolutism for existing states, such as France or Spain, that the state held everyone's rights, claiming the people had given them all up.

There isn't any other competing theories? For instance, I can imagine someone arguing that, for instance, no one can "own" property. They may claim property, but ownership of, say, land is in name and aggressive claim only, but land belongs to no one, or it belongs to everyone.

Of course. It's a question of ownership.

Huh. I assumed that that claim was exclusive to things like land.

As above, the right to the article itself is alienable (the owner can sell or gift it), but the right to property is not. That is, without the owner's consent, taking the article is theft. The owner can consent to transfer the article, but it makes no sense to say the owner can transfer away the truth that taking his property without his consent is theft.

My grandfather owned lots of land. The government, without his consent, took his land in order to run a highway through it. Was that illegal?

If you are talking about the Constitution, the 9th Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The federal government has no delegated authority to pass laws restricting the possession of heroin, etc. Any such existing federal statutes are unconstitutional, thus illegal. And that is independent of the question of whether they are rights.

So, do you believe that you should legally be able to own and harvest poppy fields in America, for the processing and possession of heroin?

Most advocates argue that rights arise from human nature.

According to whom? And why should anyone recognize that authority?

[rogue06]

When Antonin Scalia, perhaps the most strongest pro-gun-rights justice that the country has ever had, says that there are still limitations to the Second Amendment, I consider that to be a very strong argument that there are in fact limitations to the Second Amendment.

The Canadian courts made that decision based on the Canadian constitution, which is different than the United States constitution.

Actually I agree. No right is completely limitless or absolute. Just like the First Amendment's right to free speech doesn't allow someone to libel or slander someone or shout "fire" in the proverbial crowded theater (unless, of course, there is a fire).

[rogue06]

I guess my question then is, does it work in other first world nations? And if so, then why can it not work here? Cultural differences?

I've always found it interesting how some insist on limiting things to just "first world nations" in this discussion. It almost sounds like they want to limit comparisons due to cherry picking or worse that they think people in non-first world nations are different and don't count.

[rogue06]

Yes the government does not seem to respect the Constitution except where it is convenient.

Pretty much been that way from early on. The Alien Sedition Acts of 1798 were a virtual slap in the face to the Bill of Rights.

[One Bad Pig]

I guess my question then is, does it work in other first world nations? And if so, then why can it not work here? Cultural differences?

This is sorta a non sequitur. It may limit gun violence (as opposed to other violence), but at what cost? Was Germany a first world nation in the '30s?

[One Bad Pig]

I can testify to that. but a little training and knowledge about the gun you are using will help with efficiency I ought to know first rifle my brother let me go target shooting with was a bolt action(I think that is what it was called i had to cock it to cycle the bullets into the chamber every time I shot it. Next Gun wasn't and my brother forgot to tell me the difference so I did the same thing I did with the first Gun and ended up ejecting half the bullets. I had some nice groupings but less shots

as my brother told me I had about 95% accuracy and 50% efficiency

On the other hand, most people looking for emergency protection will be looking for handguns, which don't have that issue. And given that mere possession of a firearm is often sufficient deterrent....

[JimL]

Trick question: It doesn't. It determines what legal rights there are. And the Constitution quite clearly establishes a legal right for guns that it does not establish for cars.

Wrong, yes they did, but the Founders had no conception of what weapons might exist in the 21st century, nor that motor vehicles would exist. The Constitution was written by fallible men in the context of the times, not writ in stone for all time.

[One Bad Pig]

Wrong, yes they did, but the Founders had no conception of what weapons might exist in the 21st century, nor that motor vehicles would exist. The Constitution was written by fallible men in the context of the times, not writ in stone for all time.

The Founders did not care what weapons might exist in the 21st century. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, whatever those might be.

The Constitution is indeed not written in stone - that is why there is an amendment process. Let's follow it, shall we?

[JimL]

It doesn't even do that. That is made explicit in the 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I would also suggest that the 2nd Amendment does not establish the legal right, but presupposes its existence. It makes explicit what would have been implicit anyway.

It is still fallible men that are making the determination for the rest of us that owning guns is a natural right. Again, what makes a right, a natural right?

[JimL]

The Founders did not care what weapons might exist in the 21st century.

Right, and thats because they had know conception of future weapons.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, whatever those might be.

Yes, we all know that, but again the 2nd amendment was written in context with the times, and the "whatever those weapons might be" consisted basically of muskets.

The Constitution is indeed not written in stone - that is why there is an amendment process. Let's follow it, shall we?

Amending the Constitution is unnecessary, we already regulate firearms. We're talking further regulation of firearms, not the banning of firearms.

[rogue06]

Wrong, yes they did, but the Founders had no conception of what weapons might exist in the 21st century, nor that motor vehicles would exist. The Constitution was written by fallible men in the context of the times, not writ in stone for all time.

The Founding Fathers had no conception of TV, radio, telephones or the internet but nobody would seriously argue that they shouldn't be covered by the First Amendment.

Similarly, they didn't conceive of houses built with modern building materials complete with indoor toilets, electricity, air conditioning and central heating but nobody would seriously maintain that such structures aren't covered by the Fourth Amendment's provision against unlawful searches.