Repeal the Second Amendment, says former Justice Stevens.
drummerboy said:
it's funny how people think that "inalienable rights" is some sort of immutable fact, rather than the mere opinion of some people. As if they've got a direct pipeline to god.
Rights are what we as a society say they are - neither more nor less.
That’s your opinion.... no more no less 
ml1 said:
the discussion above my earlier comment was about “inalienable rights”, so that was the relevance.
Now, it’s just a tangent.
Wise choice 
yeah, except I can make a reasoned argument why I'm correct. You, not so much, burdened as you are with an irrational position.
Jackson_Fusion said:
drummerboy said:
it's funny how people think that "inalienable rights" is some sort of immutable fact, rather than the mere opinion of some people. As if they've got a direct pipeline to god.
Rights are what we as a society say they are - neither more nor less.
That’s your opinion.... no more no less
drummerboy said:
yeah, except I can make a reasoned argument why I'm correct. You, not so much, burdened as you are with an irrational position.
Jackson_Fusion said:
drummerboy said:
it's funny how people think that "inalienable rights" is some sort of immutable fact, rather than the mere opinion of some people. As if they've got a direct pipeline to god.
Rights are what we as a society say they are - neither more nor less.
That’s your opinion.... no more no less
There have always been those who believe those rights are the perogative of kings, commissars & gentry- largess to bestow upon the mass of groveling and grateful lessers should they behave in a manner acceptable, and revocable at any time, by the leave of the superior.
The Founder’s idea was that all men and women, regardless of their rank, had rights by virtue of their existence.
The country has not always lived up to that ideal. Does that make the ideal null? And if “society” (or whoever the new gentry is) decide those rights no longer exist, does that mean they don’t? I’m not asking if those rights can be abrogated. They can. Does that make fighting for them immoral? Kings and tyrants would have told you “yes”. In fact there was no higher sin... and I don’t use that word accidentally.
So what exactly are you arguing, the obvious fact that “society” can abrogate rights, or that individuals don’t have them?
As we’re discussing the Constitution and not the DOI you can leave God out of it.
Looking forward to the reasoned argument, or back into the “unread” bucket you go.
I'm arguing that the phrase "inalienable rights" has little inherent meaning, and consequently shouldn't be used to describe our rights, as it sheds no light on what our rights actually are. Is the set of inalienable rights restricted to what a few men decided to write down 250 years ago?
At best it's a minor and simplistic concept and a catchy phrase - at worst it's simply useless and tells us nothing. The fact that the people who came up with the concept couldn't even enforce their own meager allotment of rights should tell you all you need to know.
And your post doesn't do much to explain it's value.
eta: I'll go further and say that the phrase is actually more harmful than not, as it gives an opening to whackos like the NRA to start adding it's own inalienable rights to the list. Calling something inalienable and as a gift from God is a great demagogic tool.
Jackson_Fusion said:
The Founder’s idea was that all men and women, regardless of their rank, had rights by virtue of their existence.
Or (not-always-up-to-it exceptions aside) by virtue of a lack of probable cause. Or by virtue of peacetime. Or a dispute’s being worth more than 20 bucks.
drummerboy said:
are you disputing that the NRA changed their position regarding the second amendment such that they are now actually claiming the right to a gun is God given? Seems to me that is both unreasonable and legally untenable.
Are you disputing that since 9/11 we have had people promoting a pro-torture outlook in our public discourse? And how does a government embark on a torture regime without having pro-torture people to enable it?
Anyway, not sure of your point. I don't feel the need to prove to you that the sky is sometimes blue. Some things are a given, and as such, proving them is a waste of time.
Tom_R said:
drummerboy,
What is the totally unreasonable and legally untenable interpretation of the 2nd amendment which the NRA posited some decades ago?
Also, as long as I have your attention; who are the pro-torture persons of whom you wrote?
Answer, or don't answer.
I presume that you had something in mind when you wrote that which you did. Share it with us.
TomR
drummerboy,
What is the totally unreasonable and legally untenable interpretation of the 2nd amendment which the NRA posited some decades ago?
Also, as long as I have your attention; who are the pro-torture persons of whom you wrote?
TomR
I believe we're in some sort of loop.
exit
Tom_R said:
Tom_R said:
drummerboy said:
are you disputing that the NRA changed their position regarding the second amendment such that they are now actually claiming the right to a gun is God given? Seems to me that is both unreasonable and legally untenable.
Are you disputing that since 9/11 we have had people promoting a pro-torture outlook in our public discourse? And how does a government embark on a torture regime without having pro-torture people to enable it?
Anyway, not sure of your point. I don't feel the need to prove to you that the sky is sometimes blue. Some things are a given, and as such, proving them is a waste of time.
Tom_R said:
drummerboy,
What is the totally unreasonable and legally untenable interpretation of the 2nd amendment which the NRA posited some decades ago?
Also, as long as I have your attention; who are the pro-torture persons of whom you wrote?
Answer, or don't answer.
I presume that you had something in mind when you wrote that which you did. Share it with us.
TomR
drummerboy,
What is the totally unreasonable and legally untenable interpretation of the 2nd amendment which the NRA posited some decades ago?
Also, as long as I have your attention; who are the pro-torture persons of whom you wrote?
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/repeal-the-second-amendment-says-former-justice-stevens#new-comment-form
TomR
The inalienable rights part flows directly from natural law, of which much has been written philosophically for well over 1000 years. It is a concept that should tell us quite a lot, or at least give us much to consider. It did not spring fully formed from “a couple men” 250 years ago. I personally would not view the concept as “minor” or “simplistic”, given the amount of ink spilled exploring the idea, by names famous and not so famous.
Still not sure if you think they’re properly bestowed by whoever is in power by their leave or just pointing out, quite accurately, that they can be violated.
Amendments 9 & 10 address your final point.
drummerboy said:
I'm arguing that the phrase "inalienable rights" has little inherent meaning, and consequently shouldn't be used to describe our rights, as it sheds no light on what our rights actually are. Is the set of inalienable rights restricted to what a few men decided to write down 250 years ago?
At best it's a minor and simplistic concept and a catchy phrase - at worst it's simply useless and tells us nothing. The fact that the people who came up with the concept couldn't even enforce their own meager allotment of rights should tell you all you need to know.
And your post doesn't do much to explain it's value.
eta: I'll go further and say that the phrase is actually more harmful than not, as it gives an opening to whackos like the NRA to start adding it's own inalienable rights to the list. Calling something inalienable and as a gift from God is a great demagogic tool.
Baron acknowledges weapons ownership by the gentry (in my mind the general rule) with limitations on such a right based on class, property ownership and religion (in my mind the exceptions). Similar to the right to vote, or franchise, we the people have had a right to vote from the beginnings of the US (with significant exceptions). However, the franchise has expanded over time through eliminations of exceptions to the general rule. My understanding is that with respect to bearing arms, these exceptions were wholly or mostly eliminated when the US was formed.
Excerpts from Guns and Grammer, Dennis Baron:
"Despite the gun lobby’s insistence on a long common law tradition supporting the
individual’s right to weapons, gun regulation has been a feature of English law since the Dennis Baron, Guns and Grammar, 2 14th century, when a series of Game Laws expressly restricted weapons ownership to
members of the gentry who met thresholds of income and land ownership – guns were for
the wealthy, not the peasants or the lower middle class (Schwoerer 2000). Even the
English Bill of Rights, presented by the House of Commons to the new monarchs
William and Mary in 1689, the very statute that is often cited by gun lobbyists as
guaranteeing everyone’s right to own weapons, limited such ownership to Protestants,
provided they were of the right social class, and acknowledged the role of the law in
further regulating weapons: “that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for
their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law” (English Bill 1689,
emphasis added; Blackstone, whose opinions are frequently considered by the justices of
the U.S. Supreme Court, echoes this qualification of weapons ownership in his
Commentaries)."
Wikipedia definition: "Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable (they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).
Excerpt from United Nations Preamble to the Declaration of Human Rights: See http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
US Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [AKA inalienable rights], that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” See http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1776-1785/jeffersons-draft-of-the-declaration-of-independence.php#par2
DB statement: "Rights are what we as a society say they are - neither more nor less."
Appears that you are taking the position that rights are what the political powers determine that they are. This POV appears to be in the same spirit as Mao Zedong's infamous quote: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Let me know if you agree.
drummerboy said:
it's funny how people think that "inalienable rights" is some sort of immutable fact, rather than the mere opinion of some people. As if they've got a direct pipeline to god.
Rights are what we as a society say they are - neither more nor less.
“They fear that what starts as an assault-weapons ban will snowball into an attack on everything in the safe. I don’t believe that politicians are going to ban ordinary guns or overturn the Second Amendment, but I understand their reasoning because I understand what’s at stake. I think about that boy picking up that AR in Cabela’s, and I’m torn between the culture I grew up with and how that culture has devolved. There are changes I know must come, changes to what types of firearms line the shelves and to the background checks and ownership requirements needed to carry one out the door. And there is an unrelenting fear of what could be lost — a subsistence culture already threatened by the loss of public land, rising costs and a widening rural-urban divide; the right of individuals to protect their own lives and the lives of their families.”
Gun Culture Is My Culture. And I Fear for What It Has Become. (NYT Magazine)
RealityForAll said:
Wikipedia definition: "Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable (they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).
US Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [AKA inalienable rights], that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” See http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1776-1785/jeffersons-draft-of-the-declaration-of-independence.php#par2
So Adam and Eve had the Right to own a gun?
Did they also have the Right to Freedom of the Press?
Is the Right to access the internet an unalienable right? Did George Washington have such a Right. If Madison was writing the Bill of Rights today would he include that Right?
RealityForAll said:
Appears that you are taking the position that rights are what the political powers determine that they are. This POV appears to be in the same spirit as Mao Zedong's infamous quote: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Let me know if you agree.
Isn't that the exact position of the NRA, that without the "Right" to own a gun one is without any political power?
LOST said:
So Adam and Eve had the Right to own a gun?
Did they also have the Right to Freedom of the Press?
Is the Right to access the internet an unalienable right? Did George Washington have such a Right. If Madison was writing the Bill of Rights today would he include that Right?
Even without adding Eden to the mix, I admit being confused by talk of unalienable, natural rights in a discussion of the Bill of Rights, which does not lack for restrictions the founders deemed worthwhile.
there are only a handful of rights that are considered basic human rights. Many other rights arise out of consensus. In most of the developed world, access to health care is considered a right. Here in the U.S., the freedom to own a firearm is considered a right. In many developed countries, the ability to love and live with the person of your choice is now considered a right.
I find it interesting that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights actually includes a few items that are specifically NOT considered human rights in the U.S. The consensus in our country is that people aren't entitled to health care, or food, or any specific standard of living. And yet, here it is in black and white from the UN:
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
So to db's point, it's obvious that human rights are the result of consensus, not decree, and not because they were bestowed on humans by a god or by nature. Our rights exist only as long as we the people insist they remain. And rights can be added, or modified as consensus changes. For example, in the U.S., our right to be free of searches and surveillance has been modified as people became more frightened of crime and terrorism.
With regard to the 2nd Amendment, it doesn't need to be repealed in order for firearms to be more tightly regulated. Just as the 4th Amendment didn't prove a barrier to all sorts of invasions of privacy post 9/11, there's no reason that firearms couldn't be more tightly controlled in response to the tens of thousands of annual gun deaths in the U.S.
LOST, I am still not clear. Do you believe that inalienable rights exist?
If so, what rights would you consider inalienable?
LOST said:
RealityForAll said:
Appears that you are taking the position that rights are what the political powers determine that they are. This POV appears to be in the same spirit as Mao Zedong's infamous quote: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Let me know if you agree.
Isn't that the exact position of the NRA, that without the "Right" to own a gun one is without any political power?
LOST said:
RealityForAll said:
Wikipedia definition: "Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable (they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).
US Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [AKA inalienable rights], that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” See http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1776-1785/jeffersons-draft-of-the-declaration-of-independence.php#par2
So Adam and Eve had the Right to own a gun?
Did they also have the Right to Freedom of the Press?
Is the Right to access the internet an unalienable right? Did George Washington have such a Right. If Madison was writing the Bill of Rights today would he include that Right?
Eve's transgression severely curtailed her families right to happiness. With punishment being applied to the family, not just the transgressor.
It seems, therefore, God was not in agreement with the unalienable rights philosophy.
Our founders were somewhat bipolar about these rights. Having no problem with denying them to a certain segment of the populace, making unalienable rather alienable.
But it was a nice talking point and motivator for the revolution.
Human rights and natural rights are not the same thing.
ml1 said:
there are only a handful of rights that are considered basic human rights. Many other rights arise out of consensus. In most of the developed world, access to health care is considered a right. Here in the U.S., the freedom to own a firearm is considered a right. In many developed countries, the ability to love and live with the person of your choice is now considered a right.
I find it interesting that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights actually includes a few items that are specifically NOT considered human rights in the U.S. The consensus in our country is that people aren't entitled to health care, or food, or any specific standard of living. And yet, here it is in black and white from the UN:
ml1 said:
there are only a handful of rights that are considered basic human rights. Many other rights arise out of consensus. In most of the developed world, access to health care is considered a right. Here in the U.S., the freedom to own a firearm is considered a right. In many developed countries, the ability to love and live with the person of your choice is now considered a right.
I find it interesting that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights actually includes a few items that are specifically NOT considered human rights in the U.S. The consensus in our country is that people aren't entitled to health care, or food, or any specific standard of living. And yet, here it is in black and white from the UN:
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
So to db's point, it's obvious that human rights are the result of consensus, not decree, and not because they were bestowed on humans by a god or by nature. Our rights exist only as long as we the people insist they remain. And rights can be added, or modified as consensus changes. For example, in the U.S., our right to be free of searches and surveillance has been modified as people became more frightened of crime and terrorism.
With regard to the 2nd Amendment, it doesn't need to be repealed in order for firearms to be more tightly regulated. Just as the 4th Amendment didn't prove a barrier to all sorts of invasions of privacy post 9/11, there's no reason that firearms couldn't be more tightly controlled in response to the tens of thousands of annual gun deaths in the U.S.
Please provide your authority for your position (namely, own[ing] a firearm is not a natural right).
ml1, do you consider self defense an inalienable right (or, alternatively, a natural right)?
ml1 said:
and the right to own a firearm is not a natural right.
owning a gun is a legal right, not a natural right. If I legally own one, I have a natural right to use it in self-defense.
The right to own weapons, whatever its scope, source and legitimacy, has to be balanced with the basic police power of the state to protect the health safety and welfare of citizens:
"The authority for use of police power under American Constitutional law has its roots in English and European common law traditions.[2] Even more fundamentally, use of police power draws on two (Latin) principles, sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas ("use that which is yours so as not to injure others"), and salus populi suprema lex esto ("the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law"), to justify restriction of individual liberties in order to protect the general welfare.[2] The concept of police power in America was further expanded in a series of notable court cases in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, including the landmark 1851 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case Commonwealth v. Alger, and the 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts."
I'm not one to lightly give up my individual rights on the assumption that the state is always benevolent and effective but we're talking here about an inherently dangerous and destructive thing here. The NRA's "no, never, nothing" attitude has to give way to reasonable regulation.
ml1 said:
and the right to own a firearm is not a natural right.
Given that you didn’t seem to know the difference between natural & human rights a few short posts ago I am wondering how you could come so quickly to that conclusion, but am ever willing to hear how the means of self defense (“arms”, in the Constitution’s formulation) may be barred under natural law or rights.
RealityForAll said:
LOST, I am still not clear. Do you believe that inalienable rights exist?
If so, what rights would you consider inalienable?
LOST said:
RealityForAll said:
Appears that you are taking the position that rights are what the political powers determine that they are. This POV appears to be in the same spirit as Mao Zedong's infamous quote: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Let me know if you agree.
Isn't that the exact position of the NRA, that without the "Right" to own a gun one is without any political power?
I do not know which is why I ask questions.Some questions are not rhetorical.
The Declaration of Independence states "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". What do those terms mean. There are large organizations which actually call themselves "Right to Life", yet many, if not most, question their definitions of "right" and "life", and their positions are not held by a majority. As is clear from this discussion some would argue that the "Right to Liberty" must include the right to own guns. Others disagree. And the "Right to the Pursuit of Happiness" is even more problematic. What does it even mean?
Jackson Fusion says "natural rights" and "human rights" are different. I really do not understand what rights fall into which categories and what the difference is.
Jackson_Fusion said:
but am ever willing to hear how the means of self defense (“arms”, in the Constitution’s formulation) may be barred under natural law or rights.
I never suggested banning guns. So I don't have an an answer for that.
But if owning a gun is a natural right, doesn't that mean every person should be allowed to have one with them at all times? Even children, felons and all the people in the room with the president?
Jackson_Fusion said:
Human rights and natural rights are not the same thing.
Human rights include, but aren't limited to, the natural rights. At least, that's one way to define the terms.
ml1, I believe the right to procreate is a natural right. If so, applying your spin on firearms and natural rights to the right-to-procreate, would lead us to the following: every person should be allowed to procreate at all times. Even children, felons and all the people in room with the President (this may actually be happening).
Let me know your thoughts.
ml1 said:
But if owning a gun is a natural right, doesn't that mean every person should be allowed to have one with them at all times? Even children, felons and all the people in the room with the president?
Rentals
For Sale
-
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info
Garage Sales
-
House Contents Sale - Rain or Shine Sale Date: May 18, 2024
More info
it's funny how people think that "inalienable rights" is some sort of immutable fact, rather than the mere opinion of some people. As if they've got a direct pipeline to god.
Rights are what we as a society say they are - neither more nor less.