Summations Only

I just wanted to highlight a contrast between a real pro-gun argument and the evasive, name calling, non-arguments that have formed the bulk of the pro-gun posts we've seen here in the last few weeks. I take it that you are proponent of natural rights. Not everyone agrees with such things. I find it difficult to believe that there is a natural right to unfettered gun possession. I can buy a natural right to self defense, to hunt and forage (with suitable arms), but where in the world would the right to posses 5 inch artillery come from?

I'm not sure that I am personally a proponent. It seems like a great idea but its hard to ground it objectively. But, the authors of the BoR were, and the influencial English Bill of Rights was written specifically to contrast the natural rights of the people as opposed to the Divine Rights of the king. So in that sense I'm a proponant.I'm certainly against the notion that we should all ponder what rights that we should allow people to have rather than defaulting on them having the right until we find sufficient reason to restrict it. No rights are unfettered, not even speech. Or as the supreme court phrased it: "no rights are absolute and unlimited" I think the natural right to self defense is the biggest influence on the 2nd. That what the English Bill of Right version stemmed from. The natural right to self-defense goes back to Aristotle. I don't think the 2nd is even talking about the right to to posses 5 inch artillery. Its understood to mean the arms that an individual can utilize. Artillery requires a crew, its a military thing. It has nothing to do with self-defense.

Hi Dr, What do you classify as an assault weapon?I have a 30.06 Remington semi-automatic hunting rifle, with no scope with a magazine that holds 10 bullets. Would that qualify as an assault weapon according to you?If there was a magazine that held 30 bullets, would that make my 30.06 an assault weapon?God Bless,

Hi Dr, What makes you think Adam Lanza would't have been able to get his hands on an assault weapon?There are multiple thousands of fully automatic weapons that are owned by people in the US. Yes I know that it is against the law to own such weapons since 1934. That does not keep criminals from obtaining them from police and military sources. Laws do not keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.So what makes you so sure Adam could not have obtained a fully automatic weapon if he really desired one if his mother had not had a semi-automatic weapon in the house? Do you think the criminals are going to be using a single-shot muzzle-loading pistol?If not, then you would be infringing my right to be able to defend myself and my family by limiting me to a single-shot muzzle-loading pistol. If there was one assailant I would have no problem unless he/she was jackedup on drugs in which place either could take 5 or more bullets and still be mobile. But what would happen if there was 2 or more assailants? Me thinks me would be in trouble because of your infringing my right to be able to protect myself and my family.God Bless,

Hi Fin, The second amendment does not create anything.The second amendment forbids the government from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.God Bless,

I'm an atheist, metaphysical naturalist, and existential / moral nihilist, so I don't believe in any kind of natural rights. Rights are socially constructed concepts granted by those in power, and not things that exist within objective reality. The Bill of Rights does create rights for American citizens.As the existence of natural law / natural rights is a positive claim, the burden of proof rests on its proponent to demonstrate such things exist, not on the skeptic to prove such things don't exist.

Oh right.So what is it that gives the people the right to keep and bear arms if not the second amendment ?Edited by vimesey, : Tidying up

I am not sure what the gun laws are like in Delaware but two women have lost their lives (the gunman is dead too) because of a firearmed assailant.Page Unavailable - ABC News

Well la-di-da. So much for thinking for yourself... Okay, well then you'd accept that I should be able to have any kind of weapon I want until someone in power tells me I can't. No, that's wrong. Show me where it does that.But regardless, what you originally posted remains in error:

quote:

---

we could totally ban guns and still not violate the amendment.

---

A gun ban would violate the amendment. You've failed to show otherwise.Your naive idea that its ambiguity limits its scope is refuted by current applications of the amendments. How quickly you run and hide!Anyways, Natural Rights are more of an ought-thing than an is-thing. People ought to be treated a certain way, but they're not objectively guaranteed any particular treatment. Through our empathy we can determine which things should and shouldn't do to each other. If you cannot understand that, then I'll leave you to wallow in your sociopathy.

How can guns be interpreted as a constitutional right when they are mentioned nowhere in the constitution? By your line of reasoning, each individual should be able to possess nuclear and biological weapons, as they are also types of "arms."The fact is, the constitution gives the courts and legislators the right and obligation to limit activities that are detrimental to American society. The ability of individuals to possess efficient killing machines -- machines designed only to take human life -- is detrimental to society, and should, in my opinion, be stripped away. No one should have the right to freely possess and use instruments designed only for violence.

The fact that there's nothing at all stopping you from arming yourself. You can pick up a big stick off the ground and you are armed with a club. You don't have to have any words written down on paper to be able to pick up a big stick. You don't need to have your rights granted to you.

quote:

---

Anyways, Natural Rights are more of an ought-thing than an is-thing. People ought to be treated a certain way, but they're not objectively guaranteed any particular treatment. Through our empathy we can determine which things should and shouldn't do to each other. If you cannot understand that, then I'll leave you to wallow in your sociopathy.

---

I agree that people (and non-human animals) ought to be treated in a certain way, but I'm not so naive as to think such feelings come from anywhere other than my own subjectively, biologically, and culturally constructed, largely emotional and sentimental feelings of empathy and kindness. I like being kind, so I don't kill / rape / murder, and I do give to charity, love my family and friends, help other people and animals, and live as selflessly as possible. I have a conscience developed by my own brain, evolutionary history, and upbringing, so I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I committed a violent act against another living being.
These things are not moral facts, but subjective feelings. They aren't "natural rights," only personal opinions. When enough people have such personal opinions, they become social norms, and when the state decides to enforce such norms, they become laws, which are the closest things we have to an "objective morality." Edited by Fin, : No reason given.Edited by Fin, : No reason given.

In the same way that you have the right to free speech on the internet, or on the radio, or television, even though they're not mentioned in there either.But even worse for this line of argument, as I've already explained, we know that they were talking about 'firearms' when they just wrote 'arms'. The ambiguity is there on purpose so that the applications can be extended into the future.Do you understand at all how constitutional law works in this country? Only through ignorant naivity can these kinds of arguments come about. Do you also believe that the first amendment allows you to scream in a cops face that you're going to kill him?No rights are absolute and unlimited. And those rights are limited in favor of The Peoples' Rights. Its incumbant upon those wanting to limit the rights to show they're deterimental. In no case does the right have to be shown to exist first. Thanks for sharing your opinion, but its worthless in a practical sense. Wow, that moral nihilism didn't last very long.

So all that I need to demonstrate, to have the right to do something, is that I am able to do it ?

Sort of, but not really. Its not that being able to do something demonstrates your right to do it. Its that if you are not being prevented from doing something, then you already have the right to do it by default. You don't need someone telling you that you are allowed to do it before you can."Am I allowed to go over there? I dunno, I don't see a sign saying that I can.""As long as there isn't a sign saying that you can't go over there, then you can."Does that make sense?We don't have the right to arms because its written down in the constitution. We already had it, there was nothing preventing it.And even the wording of the 2nd amendment doesn't grant the right, it assumes the right and says not to infringe it.