National School Walkout

[Sparko]

But apparently, if we repeal the 2nd and it no longer says so in the constitution, you apparently retain that right, correct? So your right, as you claim, is not granted by the constitution - you claim it is recognized by the constitution. You cannot have it both ways. If it is granted by the constitution, repealing it eliminates the right. If it is recognized by the constitution, you have to show that the right ACTUALLY exists - otherwise, the FFs just made a mistake.

I never said it was granted by the constitution. It is RECOGNIZED in the constitution. - I don't have to prove it exists. It has been recognized as existing by Americans for over 200 years and by the English before that (if you recall Seer's post on that long ago) - It exists and it is part of our heritage. It doesn't matter if you agree or believe it, or if other countries agree or believe it. It exists here in this country and always has. You can't wish it away or vote it away. You are the one who has to prove it does not exist since you are the one claiming it doesn't. By virtue of people owning guns for over 200 years in this country the right exists. Right Mr. relativist?

No. You are not being consistent with previously stated positions. I have been told numerous times that I cannot use "owning a car" as an analogy because "we have no constitutionally protected right to own a car." The fact that I have the right to own private property does not give me a constitutionally protected right to own any particular thing. I have given you several examples of things I am not permitted to "own" and nobody defends my right to own those things on the basis of the 5th amendment.

You have a right to own property. That includes things like cars. Or guns. Guns are property. The constitution recognizes the right to own guns. Your argument is invalid.

We can quickly see this by noting that, if I have cash to buy a house, and owner after owner turns me away and I cannot buy one, I cannot appeal to my constitutional right to own a house.

because those houses are already owned by someone. Go build your own house.

What? Your objection here makes no rational sense, Sparko. It doesn't even begin to align with what I have been saying.

it does. Your objection to the 2nd amendment was that no other right is about "owning a specific thing" - that is a stupid objection. No two rights are about the same thing. I can make up excuses like that for any right. No other right is about "speaking freely" than the 1st. Same thing. Some made-up excuse that means nothing other than "this right is different than other rights" -- so what?

So no other right is about "owning a thing" - who cares? Why does THAT make it not a right?

[seer]

Seer, you're not making sense. I offered both your definition and my definition. You cannot show guns to be an "inherent right" in either. The same is not true of the other rights protected by the constitution.

Not the point Carp, if you are correct we are free to define inherent rights to include or exclude what we wish, whether they are common or not. That makes no difference, so if the Framers define the right to bear arms as such a right you have no logical ground, save your own opinion, to object.

Based on the previous, this also fails. You keep dodging the basic problem with your argument, Seer, and you keep trying to wrap it around my moral relativism. Here's the problem with your claim. Let's break it down to a simple Pascalian matrix:


My worldview - there are no inherent rights: then the FFs were not only wrong in #2, they were also wrong in all of the other inherent rights.
My worldview - there are inherent rights - then you still have to show how owning/bearing arms is magically the only "thing(s)" we have an inherent right to, which you have not done.
Your worldview - there are inherent rights - then you still have to show how owning/bearing arms is magically the only "thing(s)" we have an inherent right to, which you have not done.
Your worldview - there are no no inherent rights - then the FFs were not only wrong in #2, they were also wrong in all of the other inherent rights.

So, whether my system or yours is the correct one, you are left with either no inherent rights at all, or you have to make the case for why "this thing" (arms) merits special treatment as an "inherent right." In so doing, you have to explain why no other "thing" we need to survive merits this amazing status.

Make sense?

No you are not making sense:

1. Right in your worldview there are no inherent rights, hence we can define rights as we wish.

2. But there are no actual inherent rights in your worldview, so again we are free to invent them.

3. Why do I have to show that bearing arms necessary in the pursuit of family and self defence is not magical? It is perfectly logical.

4. That question takes more response than I have the inclination for right now. One I'm not settled on.

[seer]

it does. Your objection to the 2nd amendment was that no other right is about "owning a specific thing" - that is a stupid objection. No two rights are about the same thing. I can make up excuses like that for any right. No other right is about "speaking freely" than the 1st. Same thing. Some made-up excuse that means nothing other than "this right is different than other rights" -- so what?

It is like saying that I have the right to free speech, but I don't have a right to own a printing press to print and decimate my views. That in fact the government can come and confiscate my printing press or computer for that matter.

[JimL]

Not the point Carp, if you are correct we are free to define inherent rights to include or exclude what we wish, whether they are common or not. That makes no difference, so if the Framers define the right to bear arms as such a right you have no logical ground, save your own opinion, to object.

Except that the framers didn't define the right to bear arms as such an inherent right.

[Sparko]

Except that the framers didn't define the right to bear arms as such an inherent right.

yes they did.

[seer]

Except that the framers didn't define the right to bear arms as such an inherent right.

They defined it as a right that can not be infringed - sounds pretty inherent. And they never said that free speech was an inherent right either. They really did not use that kind of language.

[carpedm9587]

Not the point Carp, if you are correct we are free to define inherent rights to include or exclude what we wish, whether they are common or not. That makes no difference, so if the Framers define the right to bear arms as such a right you have no logical ground, save your own opinion, to object.

Actually, in my worldview is not "what we arbitrarily define" it is "what is valued by the vast majority of humanity." It's not about choosing it - it is about recognizing what is valued. That is what makes it inherent. In your worldview, well, I presume it's about what god says?

In either case there is an objective basis for determining what is an "inherent right." In my case, the answer to the question, "does the majority of humanity value it" tells us. In your case, I guess it's "does god say so."

No you are not making sense:

Seer, you're not making sense. I think you still don't understand the concept here.

1. Right in your worldview there are no inherent rights, hence we can define rights as we wish.

If there are no "inherent rights" (which is not my worldview), then there are no inherent rights. Ergo, the entire bill of rights must go. None of it is true.

2. But there are no actual inherent rights in your worldview, so again we are free to invent them.

...this makes no sense. If there are no inherent rights, we can't "invent them." They simply don't exist. In which case, the entire bill of rights needs to go.

Fortunately, that is not the case.

3. Why do I have to show that bearing arms necessary in the pursuit of family and self defence is not magical? It is perfectly logical.

Then your position is inconsistent, because we also need food, clothing, and shelter to survive, and none of those is constitutionally protected. We also don't constitutionally protect any other weapon - just firearms (unless you plan to take Seer's approach of expanding "arms" to mean "any weapon whatsoever"). So, somehow, this one class of "thing" is given special protection. Indeed, if there WERE no firearms, there would be no one with a firearm to threaten us, making all sorts of other defensive strategies perfectly acceptable. The position just folds in on itself.

4. That question takes more response than I have the inclination for right now. One I'm not settled on.

It was included for completeness sake, to complete the possibilities. My understanding of your worldview is that this option is impossible, at least from your perspective.

[Sparko]

(unless you plan to take Seer's approach of expanding "arms" to mean "any weapon whatsoever")

[carpedm9587]

I never said it was granted by the constitution. It is RECOGNIZED in the constitution. - I don't have to prove it exists. It has been recognized as existing by Americans for over 200 years and by the English before that (if you recall Seer's post on that long ago) - It exists and it is part of our heritage.

It is in the constitution - yes

It has been there for 250 years - yes

It has been part of our culture - yes

It is recognized by English Law - yes

It is an inherent right? - No.

For the various reasons I have cited, you cannot show that it IS an inherent right, meaning the FFs made a mistake. That it has "always been that way" or "been that way for a very long time" or "is in our culture" are not valid arguments. They are actually very poor arguments. Circumstances change. And if the FFs made a mistake putting it there, then how long it has been there does not alter the fact that it's a mistake. As for English Law - it's hard to see that as a rock hard basis when the very country from which English Law arose has abandoned this "guns as a right" perspective.

It doesn't matter if you agree or believe it, or if other countries agree or believe it. It exists here in this country and always has. You can't wish it away or vote it away. You are the one who has to prove it does not exist since you are the one claiming it doesn't. By virtue of people owning guns for over 200 years in this country the right exists. Right Mr. relativist?

Actually, I can. If the people of TODAY decide they do not want this to be the way we function, and repeal this amendment using the procedures given to us BY those same FFs, then the right will become a privilege and will not exist in the constitution anymore. The laws will change, and eventually it will not be in our culture anymore. You cannot argue that that is not a perfectly valid course of action UNLESS you attempt to show that this right transcends the constitution and is inherent in the person.

But you cannot do that, for the reasons I have cited several times now.

You have a right to own property. That includes things like cars. Or guns. Guns are property. The constitution recognizes the right to own guns. Your argument is invalid.

because those houses are already owned by someone. Go build your own house.


it does. Your objection to the 2nd amendment was that no other right is about "owning a specific thing" - that is a stupid objection. No two rights are about the same thing. I can make up excuses like that for any right. No other right is about "speaking freely" than the 1st. Same thing. Some made-up excuse that means nothing other than "this right is different than other rights" -- so what?

So no other right is about "owning a thing" - who cares? Why does THAT make it not a right?

No other specific THING, as I have noted now several times, is a "constitutional protected right." I have the generic right of ownership, meaning the government cannot take my personal property. But I have no constitutional claim to the right to "own X" in the way the 2nd amendment grants/recognizes it for guns. So there are two possibilities

1) Guns are a right granted by the constitution - if this is true, we can revoke them simply by revoking the 2nd Amendment. You say this is not the case - so we move on to the other possibility

2) Guns are a right recognized by the constitution - this leads us to two more possibilities:

a) The FFs were wrong in giving guns this status. If they were wrong, and guns are NOT an inherent right, again, repealing the 2nd Amendment solves the problem.
b) The FFs were right in giving guns this status. If they were right - repealing it does not change the fact that it is an inherent right, and those with guns are justified in "going to war" to protect their right.

You appear to want to go down the road of 2-a: Constitution recognizes the right, and the FFs were correct in their assessment that this IS a right.

That leaves you with the problem of showing what I have asked now several times: why guns - explicitly firearms - and no other possession. How did the invention of the firearm suddenly confer on humanity a right they did not have BEFORE that invention. What is it about firearms that give it this unique status as a possession of "inherent right." Why not clothing, houses, food, cars, computers, smartphones, or anything else we own. None of them rises to the status of "inherent right." Only guns. How is that so?

And your appeal to the fifth simply does not work. I do not have a constitutionally protected right to any other single thing. I have the generic right that what I DO own the government cannot take without due cause and/or just compensation. But they can take my house for eminent domain purposes. They can outlaw product X if they deem it harmful. ONLY guns have constitutional protection.

It cannot be defended. The FFs were wrong.

[JimL]

yes they did.

No, they didn't. Show me where in the 2nd amendment it states that the right to bear arms is an inherent right. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were believed to be unalianable rights whereas the right to bear arms was not an unailianable right, but a right previously allowed in order to defend the state. Nothing in the 2nd amendment about its being an unailianable right and there is certainly nothing there suggesting that the right is unlimited or free from government regulation.

[carpedm9587]

Yes - I did. Thanks for the correction.

As I have noted before. Sparko, expanding the class from "a wide variety of guns" to a "wide variety of weapons" does not solve your problem. You and I also know, Sparko, that the 2nd has never been used to defend the right of someone to own a bow, a knife, or shuriken. ONLY guns have ever been deemed "protected" under this amendment.

It is possible I am wrong about that - I do not know ALL of the legal battles. But I don't think you will find a single one. Feel free to provide it, however, if you believe it is the case. Unfortunately, all you did was widen the class a bit. You haven't answered the core question.

[seer]

Actually, in my worldview is not "what we arbitrarily define" it is "what is valued by the vast majority of humanity." It's not about choosing it - it is about recognizing what is valued. That is what makes it inherent. In your worldview, well, I presume it's about what god says?

So if a majority recognized the right to bear arms as inherent it becomes inherent?

Seer, you're not making sense. I think you still don't understand the concept here.


If there are no "inherent rights" (which is not my worldview), then there are no inherent rights. Ergo, the entire bill of rights must go. None of it is true.

But it is your worldview, you already say so, that you are merely using this language to point to common themes. There are by definition no inherent rights.

...this makes no sense. If there are no inherent rights, we can't "invent them." They simply don't exist. In which case, the entire bill of rights needs to go.

But we can invent rights and call them inherent like you do.

Then your position is inconsistent, because we also need food, clothing, and shelter to survive, and none of those is constitutionally protected. We also don't constitutionally protect any other weapon - just firearms (unless you plan to take Seer's approach of expanding "arms" to mean "any weapon whatsoever"). So, somehow, this one class of "thing" is given special protection. Indeed, if there WERE no firearms, there would be no one with a firearm to threaten us, making all sorts of other defensive strategies perfectly acceptable. The position just folds in on itself.

So you don't think we have an inherent right to feed or shelter ourselves?

[JimL]

They defined it as a right that can not be infringed - sounds pretty inherent. And they never said that free speech was an inherent right either. They really did not use that kind of language.

They obviously meant that the right given to citizens to bear arms could not be infringed upon by the Federal government since that right was vital to the security of a free state. It didn't mean that the right was an inherent right. Times and circumstances have changed and you can't expect laws relevant to the 1700's to necessarily be relevant to 2018 and the courts have said as much concerning the 2nd amendment.

[seer]

They obviously meant that the right given to citizens to bear arms could not be infringed upon by the Federal government since that right was vital to the security of a free state. It didn't mean that the right was an inherent right. Times and circumstances have changed and you can't expect laws relevant to the 1700's to necessarily be relevant to 2018 and the courts have said as much concerning the 2nd amendment.

So we don't have an inherent right to free speech either? And the courts don't get to redefine the constitution...

[Sparko]

It is in the constitution - yes

It has been there for 250 years - yes

It has been part of our culture - yes

It is recognized by English Law - yes

It is an inherent right? - No.

For the various reasons I have cited, you cannot show that it IS an inherent right, meaning the FFs made a mistake. That it has "always been that way" or "been that way for a very long time" or "is in our culture" are not valid arguments. They are actually very poor arguments. Circumstances change. And if the FFs made a mistake putting it there, then how long it has been there does not alter the fact that it's a mistake. As for English Law - it's hard to see that as a rock hard basis when the very country from which English Law arose has abandoned this "guns as a right" perspective.

It is an inherent right because it has always been so. If you want to argue it is not, then it is your burden of proof to do so. The framing fathers did not feel the need to give us the right, they recognized we already had it. We have had it and considered it a fundamental right for hundreds of years. Carpedm9587 coming along and saying, "nuh-uh" doesn't change it. You are the one who is making the claim. What other countries do means nothing. There are countries who don't have freedom of speech, or property rights, or due process. Does that mean those are not fundamental rights?

In fact you can't show me why any right is an inherent right.

Actually, I can. If the people of TODAY decide they do not want this to be the way we function, and repeal this amendment using the procedures given to us BY those same FFs, then the right will become a privilege and will not exist in the constitution anymore. The laws will change, and eventually it will not be in our culture anymore. You cannot argue that that is not a perfectly valid course of action UNLESS you attempt to show that this right transcends the constitution and is inherent in the person.

I can say the same thing about any right, carpe. That doesn't make it so. And I have already shown it transcends the constitution because the constitution doesn't give us the right, it just says that the government can't infringe on it. Trying to take the right away would be infringing on it.

But you cannot do that, for the reasons I have cited several times now.

I just did. For what feels like the 10th time.

No other specific THING, as I have noted now several times, is a "constitutional protected right."

Again, so what? How does that make it not a right?

I have the generic right of ownership, meaning the government cannot take my personal property. But I have no constitutional claim to the right to "own X" in the way the 2nd amendment grants/recognizes it for guns. So there are two possibilities

1) Guns are a right granted by the constitution - if this is true, we can revoke them simply by revoking the 2nd Amendment. You say this is not the case - so we move on to the other possibility

2) Guns are a right recognized by the constitution - this leads us to two more possibilities:

a) The FFs were wrong in giving guns this status. If they were wrong, and guns are NOT an inherent right, again, repealing the 2nd Amendment solves the problem.
b) The FFs were right in giving guns this status. If they were right - repealing it does not change the fact that it is an inherent right, and those with guns are justified in "going to war" to protect their right.

2B. - that was easy. They never gave guns any particular status. Again, the 2nd only recognizes our right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't confer or grant anything.

You appear to want to go down the road of 2-a: Constitution recognizes the right, and the FFs were correct in their assessment that this IS a right.

Try again.

That leaves you with the problem of showing what I have asked now several times: why guns - explicitly firearms - and no other possession. How did the invention of the firearm suddenly confer on humanity a right they did not have BEFORE that invention. What is it about firearms that give it this unique status as a possession of "inherent right." Why not clothing, houses, food, cars, computers, smartphones, or anything else we own. None of them rises to the status of "inherent right." Only guns. How is that so?

Read above. You are the one making the argument that it is the only right that is about owning a thing. So what?