Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

damnrad · Jan 28, 2004, 05:49 pm

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (suijurisfreeman,)
The right of self-defense is probably the most fundamental right of a free Human Being. If you do not have the means to defend yourself, you many very well lose all other rights - like the right to life! Remember I claim absolutley no protection from the State, I assume the responsibility of defending myself. When I'm on my property in Kentucky, the first thing I do after putting my pants on is strap on a pistol - we have lots of rattlesnakes and copperheads in southcentral Kentucky, as well as some of those nasty, greedy people mentioned in another thread. When I ride my mountain bike 9 miles (one-way) to check my mail, I carry a pistol/shotgun or pistol/"assult rifle" with me as a means to protect myself. The last time one of my neighbors called the Sheriff's Department it took over 2 hours for them to arrive, obviously a person might not survive that long without a means to protect themselves. To me, a "gun" is just another tool that I use on a regular basis on my homestead, nothing more!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Well, I DO claim protection from the state, and particularly from people who pull on a gun before belting their pants. Not that I think you might do something, but some people like that are predators. And, yes, I claim a right to self-defense; but having a gun is one of the worst ways I can imagine of trying to exercise that right -- by having one, I would likely create much more hazard for myself and those around me than they or I otherwise face. But those are my feelings -- what about rights?

It's usually all pinned on the 2nd Amendment; and it, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, is stated in very general words. This has generally been a good thing, because it has allowed shifting interpretations over the years, as American society has reinvented its rights. But it creates a lot of space for contention, especially re Amendment # 2. Some claim that it gives individuals unfettered rights to own, and some claim to use, firearms. Others claim that it only gives a collective right for 'well-organized militias.' Well, the Constitution is just what the latest SCOTUS ruling says it is; but I still cannot see how the 2nd Amendment can be read as doing something other than giving both an individual and a collective right. Militias were how communities protected themselves, and the Framers undoubtedly saw them as an alternative to a standing military. Now, we have a long-established, massive standing military, and for nearly a century most (but not all) militrias have been folded into the National Guard; but the collective right for a civilian-based alternative is still there.

Likewise, guns were important to individual protection back then, as well as individually-owned guns to the stocking of militias, so I can't see how the Framers wouldn't have intended an individual right as well. As a public health person, I see unfortunate aspects of this, because of the harm that widespread gun ownership has done to this country, but there it is in the Constitution. But how far does that right extend? Actually, it is stated as for the purposes of a 'well-regulated militia,' so I don't think that the intent was to apply the protection to each and every member of society -- but then, some of the other rights were not so extended (in fact, none to slaves), so such limitations might best go by the wayside. Still, other rights, such as to common protection, also weigh in -- so I am sure the Framers would have supported such things as denying guns to those convicted of violent felonies, to the mentally-ill and so on. Moreover, a right to own a gun in no way ensures a right to own any and every kind of weapon -- so I have no problem with banning assault rifles. It does not ensure the right to carry the gun under all circumstances -- and I strongly support bans on concealed carry, on guns in certain public places, and so on. And a right to possession does not mean a prohibition on requirements for registration, for record-keeping of sales, and so on. And I strongly support registration laws, restrictions on sales, and record-keeping (and long-term retention) about sales.

There. I often wish the 2nd Amendment did not exist, but it does. So, I'm for working around it to try to ameliorate the horrible influences that widespread gun ownership, especially handgun ownership, have had on our society.

Ready to be flamed.

Jan 28, 2004, 05:49 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (suijurisfreeman,) The right of self-defense is probably the most fundamental right of a free Human Being. If you do not have the means to defend yourself, you many very well lose all other rights - like the right to life! Remember I claim absolutley no protection from the State, I assume the responsibility of defending myself. When I'm on my property in Kentucky, the first thing I do after putting my pants on is strap on a pistol - we have lots of rattlesnakes and copperheads in southcentral Kentucky, as well as some of those nasty, greedy people mentioned in another thread. When I ride my mountain bike 9 miles (one-way) to check my mail, I carry a pistol/shotgun or pistol/"assult rifle" with me as a means to protect myself. The last time one of my neighbors called the Sheriff's Department it took over 2 hours for them to arrive, obviously a person might not survive that long without a means to protect themselves. To me, a "gun" is just another tool that I use on a regular basis on my homestead, nothing more!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well, I DO claim protection from the state, and particularly from people who pull on a gun before belting their pants. Not that I think you might do something, but some people like that are predators. And, yes, I claim a right to self-defense; but having a gun is one of the worst ways I can imagine of trying to exercise that right -- by having one, I would likely create much more hazard for myself and those around me than they or I otherwise face. But those are my feelings -- what about rights? It's usually all pinned on the 2nd Amendment; and it, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, is stated in very general words. This has generally been a good thing, because it has allowed shifting interpretations over the years, as American society has reinvented its rights. But it creates a lot of space for contention, especially re Amendment # 2. Some claim that it gives individuals unfettered rights to own, and some claim to use, firearms. Others claim that it only gives a collective right for 'well-organized militias.' Well, the Constitution is just what the latest SCOTUS ruling says it is; but I still cannot see how the 2nd Amendment can be read as doing something other than giving both an individual and a collective right. Militias were how communities protected themselves, and the Framers undoubtedly saw them as an alternative to a standing military. Now, we have a long-established, massive standing military, and for nearly a century most (but not all) militrias have been folded into the National Guard; but the collective right for a civilian-based alternative is still there. Likewise, guns were important to individual protection back then, as well as individually-owned guns to the stocking of militias, so I can't see how the Framers wouldn't have intended an individual right as well. As a public health person, I see unfortunate aspects of this, because of the harm that widespread gun ownership has done to this country, but there it is in the Constitution. But how far does that right extend? Actually, it is stated as for the purposes of a 'well-regulated militia,' so I don't think that the intent was to apply the protection to each and every member of society -- but then, some of the other rights were not so extended (in fact, none to slaves), so such limitations might best go by the wayside. Still, other rights, such as to common protection, also weigh in -- so I am sure the Framers would have supported such things as denying guns to those convicted of violent felonies, to the mentally-ill and so on. Moreover, a right to own a gun in no way ensures a right to own any and every kind of weapon -- so I have no problem with banning assault rifles. It does not ensure the right to carry the gun under all circumstances -- and I strongly support bans on concealed carry, on guns in certain public places, and so on. And a right to possession does not mean a prohibition on requirements for registration, for record-keeping of sales, and so on. And I strongly support registration laws, restrictions on sales, and record-keeping (and long-term retention) about sales. There. I often wish the 2nd Amendment did not exist, but it does. So, I'm for working around it to try to ameliorate the horrible influences that widespread gun ownership, especially handgun ownership, have had on our society. Ready to be flamed.