arma virumque cano (et alia)
This might help you understand a bit...via legaleagle45. He won't waste his time with you, but I still will.1.) Not all rights articulated in the Bill of Rights were "preexisting" rights. Some indeed were "granted" based upon the abuses indured under British rule or upon other grounds which were nowhere recognized by the common law and can not otherwise be deemed unalienable. 2.) Almost none of the rights articulated qualify as "unalienable right" under natural law theory. Instead, they are deemed "auxillary" rights which serve to enhance, protect and preserve underlying unalienable rights. 3.) The second is such an auxillary right as it tends to protect, preserve and enhance the unalienable right of self preservation and resistance to oppression. 4.) The 2nd itself was in fact a prexisiting right recognized at common law and first "ARTICULATED" in the English Bill of Rights in 1689. 5.) The reason why I emphasize articulated because it existed as a proto right for a very long time and it was only when this proto right was violated that the right was articulated. 6.) The right grew out of an obligation to defend the community as part of the militia. Thus the right is historically connected to the militia and they encompasses an intertwined "right-duty" which is closely analogous to how we view voting (a valuable right and a civic duty) or jury service (certainly a civic duty, but would you not be peeved if all members of the NRA were excluded from such a duty?) 7.) The origination of the obligation in England can be traced to the first militia laws instituted by Alfred the Great in the mid 800's in response to Viking raids. 8. ) Various laws known as Assieze of Arms were enacted which required that persons obtain arms for use in the militia. 9.) With this obligation there grew an expectation that the arms which they were required to keep for the militia could be utilized for all lawful private purposes... the source of the proto right. 10.) This proto right was nourished for well over 500 years, until there was a concerted effort to disarm potential opponents of King James II. 11.) These efforts by King James directly led to the Glorious Revolution, the ouster of James and the accension of William and Mary in 1689. 12.) As a condition of their accension, William and Mary had to agree to the English Bill of Rights which first articulated the common law right to arms.
Of course, the right articulated by the English Bill of Rights was limted to Protestants and were those arms suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.Of course, anyone can claim anything as a right--For example I have a right to a seven figure income.Unless others agree to that being the right, it is non-existant.Also, I notice that most discussions of rights neglect responsibility and obligation.The Second Amendment had an obligation and duty incumbent upon it of service in the Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 militia, which is articulated in the text.So, One cannot claim a right without accepting the incumbent obligations and duties.
FDR blames unemployed people for dictatorships. Only death ended FDR's dictatorship, and it was only his death not that of any unemployed person.FDR advocates for everyone to have a job that pays at least 100,000 in todays money, and the actual average would likely have to be much higher than that. Not only is that what he wants - he wants it to be a "right" automatically due to everyone. Fantasy stuff.
Laci: "For example I have a right to a seven figure income."You most certainly do. Go for it!
"Do you think the glaring omission of the 2nd Amendment rights was an oversight?"Coming from a dyed in the wool commie like FDR, nope.
Thanks kaveman, for "wasting your time" here. I'm afraid that's exactly what you've done. You blah blah blah doesn't work for me, sorry.Don't you realize that the problem with the 2nd Amendment justification for modern day individual gun ownership is that it was written for the world of the 1790s? So what do you do? You quote its antecedent documents going back another 100 plus years. All you really have to say is you like guns, period. You don't need to go to such lengths to manipulate and spin the sacred documents to justify it.
Don't you realize that the problem with the 2nd Amendment justification for modern day individual gun ownership is that it was written for the world of the 1790s?You really need to come up with a better argument than, "It's OK to trample the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, because the Bill of Rights is old." The First Amendment is getting just as long in the tooth--does that mean it should be OK for the government to require citizens to worship in a religion of the government's choice?Fundamental human rights don't have a shelf life.So what do you do? You quote its antecedent documents going back another 100 plus years. And what do you do? Act as if the fact that the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment doesn't depend on that amendment for its existence, somehow weakens that right, rather than exactly the opposite.
To put it into terms that even you ought to find comprehensible:All you really have to say is you hate guns, period. You don't need to go to such lengths to manipulate and spin the sacred documents to justify it.
Zorroy, Who said anything about the 1st Amendment? We weren't talking about the 3rd either, although that would be a better comparison to support the outdated argument.All your talk about fundamental human rights is a joke when associated with owning an inanimate object. You guys have twisted this thing into something unrecognizable and have then spent the last decade or two repeating it so often that it's begun to sound right to you.You have certain rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but it's too big of a jump to say that individual gun ownership is necessary to exercise those rights. That's where the bullshit comes in.
Zorroy, Who said anything about the 1st Amendment?You are the one who thinks the age of the Second Amendment is a point against it (a telling point, at that, apparently). The First Amendment, you may perhaps be aware, is just as old.You want to trample my Second Amendment rights, because the Second Amendment is old--fine. I want a law that requires you to worship as a Pentecostal.The fact that you don't value a given right says far more about your values system than it does about the legitimacy of that right.
"Don't you realize that the problem with the 2nd Amendment justification for modern day individual gun ownership is that it was written for the world of the 1790s?"Where is the problem?Technology has changed. People have not. As did the Founding Fathers, I read Greek and Roman authors who wrote over two thousand years ago, and their wisdom rings just as true now as it when it was written.The truth doesn't change every century or decade or year like the trends in fashion.Study the Stoics and you may come to see what I mean.
"You have certain rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but it's too big of a jump to say that individual gun ownership is necessary to exercise those rights. That's where the bullshit comes in."No, individual gun ownership is necessary to protect those rights. The bullshit comes in when people try to violate the rights of others.And for the record, Jefferson screwed up when he included the "pursuit of happiness". The way Locke phrased it makes much more sense: Life, Liberty, and Property.Guns are property used to defend Life, Liberty, and Property. Note that the State is not a right.
We have a right to life, fine. You say the RKBA is necessary to exercise the right to life. I say stricter gun control is necessary to exercise the right to life. My idea makes more sense, don't you think?
The RKBA isn't necessary to EXERCISE the right to life, it is necessary to be able to PROTECT it if needed.Same with protecting our liberty.Firearms can even be a integral part of our pursuit of happiness (because guns are a fun hobby and shooting them makes some people happy). Can you tell me ANY OTHER of our rights (enumerated or not by the Constitution) where the rights are pre-emptively limited (such as what gun control tries to do) to protect us from ourselves?...Orygunner...
We weren't talking about the 3rd either, although that would be a better comparison to support the outdated argument.I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time I've seen you point to the Third Amendment, implying, I guess, that it's irrelevant, which you apparently think (somehow) bolsters your argument for why it's OK to trample the freedom guaranteed by the Second Amendment.The Third Amendment is not irrelevant--the government requiring people to house and feed soldiers in their homes would be an intolerable abuse.There is, by the way, some Third Amendment jurisprudence, and it's less than 30 years old.There's also a pretty funny Onion article, that could even be interpreted to take a swipe at the NRA, which would probably add to your amusement.
Oops--I messed up the first link in my previous comment--sorry. The Third Amendment jurisprudence is here.