Summations Only

Natural rights and legal rights are legal terms, Cat Sci, and accordingly the argument about their usage is going to be legal. If you want to argue the mentality then you should base your argument solely on that.Besides that, the theory that the constitution does not grant any rights is clearly wrong from any stand point. Your argument that the right to a jury trial is not granted is an extreme example of you trying to make a solely legalistic argument based strictly on verbiage.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Huh? No, that was a logical question. Yes or no.P1. There is not a natural right to X (where natural means that you should have already ought to been able to X)
P2. The actual right to X is created with Y
C. Before Y, X ought to not happen.Valid? Given that question of if women do have the right to vote, isn't the next thought 'well, should they?'?Heh, and given the conclusion above, that before Y, X ought to not happen, couldn't the answer to that question be 'well, I guess not.'? (that might be a stretch)Regardless, the actual answer to the qustion was that yes, women should be able to vote. They decided to phrase the granting of that legal right in a way that suggests that they think that the right to X always existed, and that we can't denying it as a legal right. So you're on to something, but what it shows is the difficulty in making the argument, not that it is a invalid or a fallacious conclusion. I think last time we left of with the question of whether or not the wording of the 19th could have just been influenced by the wording of previous amendments.I agree that talking about the rights to voting and juries exiting before the legal systems that they need to operate in doesn't really make much sense.But when you're talking about something as simple as arming yourself, phrasing it like it is a natural right suggests a mentality that it is viewed as something pre-existing before the legal granting of it.I agree with that mentality, that I don't need a government to grant me a legal right to arm myself before I think that I should ought be able to do it.

No, the phrase 'natural right' is not limited to its legal term.According to wikipedia:

quote:

---

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights. Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system. (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws) Natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).

---

. I am basing my argument on the mentality. As I said, you're looking at it too legalistically. I've been saying that the Constitution speaks like it is not actually granting the rights, and that shows the mentality behind it. I never meant to imply that the right to a jury trial hasn't been granted in the legal sense.

And I never said that they could.What I have said, and will say now again for the third time, is that the Second Amendment as written presumes the right ... to keep and bear Arms to be a preexisting natural right.

You're trying to force both New Cat's Eye and I to hold positions that we don't hold just because you'd rather argue against those crappier positions.But it ain't happening.You'll have to come up with a rebuttal to our actual positions if you want to get anywhere.Or you can keep blowing air out of your ass running in circles. Your choice.

Cat Sci and I are discussing his positions. You are just whining. I suspect that whatever you mean is something that won't get discussed.

Exactly. That's why you ducked the question when I specifically asked you whether the right to a jury trail was a natural right. And let's not forget that your position is that the constitution does not grant any rights.There is absolutely no sense in which the right to a jury trial is not granted. The idea that the constitution does not grant any rights is simply a sound bite that a reading of the text can disprove. So we cannot just use as a starting point (the way you have) that the rights enumerated in the bill of rights are all natural rights and that none of them are legal rights.If you want to make the case that the rights given by the 2nd amendment are natural rights, something other than the particular granting language that is common with the rights that we know are legal rights will be needed. And something other than the idea that the constitution does not grant rights will also be needed.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

But you're not. You're repeatedly misunderstanding his position because you wish he were arguing a crappier position.Notice his language?Those are all the words of someone trying tirelessly to clear up a misunderstanding; those aren't the words of someone having a meaningful discussion.But my effort in trying to get this across to you is probably a waste of time; you'll likely try your damnedest to miss this point too.

I don't intend to engage in a meta discussion with you about the argument I am having with someone else. If you want to defend your own position, which may or may not be the same as Cat Sci's, and by now Cat Sci has said a lot of things I disagree with, then make your own defense.

Voting rights were not even natural rights for white males. What the wording says is that women should have had the same rights as all male citizens and it is now illegal to deny such rights based on their sex/gender. That says nothing about the source of the original right, be it legal or natural. The right might well have been an historical right inherited from English common law or it could have been created with the federal government's creation of representative for which you could vote.Voting rights and citizenship at the time the constitution was enacted were granted by states. In order to become a US citizen, you had to become a citizen of the state. Well states did not grant voting rights to women and they did not grant citizenship to people of African descent. What the 15th and 19th amendments did was to remove the ability of states to deny voting rights. The 14th amendment established birthright US citizenship which is now the basis for establishing state citizenship rather than vice versa. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm obviously still way behind in this thread, but anyway, since Saab just revealed he's in law enforcement, I think he meant they are a necessary tool for law enforcement (which, I agree, is a "useful purpose"). He seems to be arguing that they have no useful purpose for your average citizen, particularly for self defense.--Percy

This is an award that can only be bestowed upon you by others, not by yourself, and obviously this isn't your only delusion. Will you be referring to yourself in the third person soon? --Percy

Just for purposes of keeping the debate factual I want to state clearly that you are correct. Quoting some of the Supreme Court's 2013 Aguilar ruling:

quote:

---

"...the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense..."

​

"...individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right..."

​

"...Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day...

---

But this Supreme Court notwithstanding, we must keep in mind another fact: the more guns, the more gun deaths.--Percy

No reply from Cat Sci. Interesting.--Percy

Well, now you're just throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks. That you seem to be both for and against natural rights depending upon whether it supports your argument of the moment seems precisely relevant. One doesn't even need to formulate one's own arguments to argue against you - one can just quote your own words back to you.--Percy