National School Walkout

[Sparko]

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.

it is an inherent (fundamental) right by the fact that the 2nd doesn't GIVE it to us, it recognizes we already have the right and only says the government can't infringe on it. It is a right the government can't take away (infringe)

[carpedm9587]

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

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.

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

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

Try again.

Yeah - I wrote "2A" and I meant "2B" I'm writing too fast.

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

Most of this is the same, excuse me, mush you have posted before. It doesn't get to the heart of the problem. I have argued that it is NOT an inherent right and the FFs calling it so (assuming they did) is simply a mistake. I made my case by pointing out it is the only "thing" that rises to that status, there is nothing about the "thing" that is so linked to human nature as to make that link obvious, and it is an invention before which this right didn't even exist. You have refuted or dealt with none of this except to wave it away with "so what" and "it's always been that way," and "it's in our culture," and "the FFs said so!" none of which are rational arguments that deal with the problem.

My point, IMO, stands. The 2nd Amendment is a mistake, and it needs to be repealed. It is time to end this insanity.

[Sparko]

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.

You are wrong.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...10078_aplc.pdfhttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=2238223

[carpedm9587]

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

The the vast majority of humanity valued "guns" and the role they play in human life, we would generally see it as an "inherent right." An "inherent right" is nothing more than one that the vast majority of humanity says is inherent to our being as humans. Life is an inherent right because we pretty much all value life. Happiness - same thing. Liberty - same thing.

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.

I have defined this several times, so repeating it again seems rather pointless.

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

Since I do not do that - no.

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

That would fall under "welfare" and "life." We don't start carving out every teeny "inherent right" if it is already part of the picture. I have the right to breathe too. That is also covered by "welfare" and "life." The constitution tends to speak to generic rights, which is another reason the 2nd is odd - it picks out one specific possession and somehow, we magically all have an "inherent right" to it. The entire notion is ludicrous.

[carpedm9587]

You are wrong.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...10078_aplc.pdfhttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=2238223

Cool - always nice to learn something. Thanks for that!

It doesn't eliminate your problem. You just made the "weapons" pool a little larger.

[Sparko]

Yeah - I wrote "2A" and I meant "2B" I'm writing too fast.



Most of this is the same, excuse me, mush you have posted before. It doesn't get to the heart of the problem. I have argued that it is NOT an inherent right and the FFs calling it so (assuming they did) is simply a mistake. I made my case by pointing out it is the only "thing" that rises to that status, there is nothing about the "thing" that is so linked to human nature as to make that link obvious, and it is an invention before which this right didn't even exist. You have refuted or dealt with none of this except to wave it away with "so what" and "it's always been that way," and "it's in our culture," and "the FFs said so!" none of which are rational arguments that deal with the problem.

My point, IMO, stands. The 2nd Amendment is a mistake, and it needs to be repealed. It is time to end this insanity.

Again, your 'reason' doesn't mean it isn't a fundamental right. You have not proven that your reason invalidates it as a right. It doesn't mean just guns. It means any personal armaments and all personal armaments. It doesn't mean weapons of mass destruction. The right to have weapons and use them dates back to when a caveman first picked up a rock to defend himself. That is pretty fundamental.

[Sparko]

The the vast majority of humanity valued "guns" and the role they play in human life, we would generally see it as an "inherent right." An "inherent right" is nothing more than one that the vast majority of humanity says is inherent to our being as humans. Life is an inherent right because we pretty much all value life. Happiness - same thing. Liberty - same thing.



I have defined this several times, so repeating it again seems rather pointless.



Since I do not do that - no.



That would fall under "welfare" and "life." We don't start carving out every teeny "inherent right" if it is already part of the picture. I have the right to breathe too. That is also covered by "welfare" and "life." The constitution tends to speak to generic rights, which is another reason the 2nd is odd - it picks out one specific possession and somehow, we magically all have an "inherent right" to it. The entire notion is ludicrous.

You keep saying this but that doesn't make it so. It doesn't pick out any specific possession. That is just YOU reading that into the text.

[carpedm9587]

You keep saying this but that doesn't make it so. It doesn't pick out any specific possession. That is just YOU reading that into the text.

Yes - it picks out the class of possession called "arms." You still have not shown why this class of possession deserves special status. I have suggested three reasons why it does not.

[carpedm9587]

Again, your 'reason' doesn't mean it isn't a fundamental right. You have not proven that your reason invalidates it as a right. It doesn't mean just guns. It means any personal armaments and all personal armaments. It doesn't mean weapons of mass destruction. The right to have weapons and use them dates back to when a caveman first picked up a rock to defend himself. That is pretty fundamental.

Ahh... now you're making progress. The fundamental right is not "possession of arms," it is the right of "self defense." As such, the 2nd is badly written and needs to be repealed and replaced to say as much. Then we can put away this issue of "I have a fundamental right to own a gun," and focus on the fundamental right of each person to be protected and safe. There are many ways to do that. It does NOT have to be by mass ownership of guns.

[carpedm9587]

OK - I have spent more time today on this than I really wanted to spend - and were down to the same cast of characters and the same exchanges repeated ad infinitum. I have made my case a cogently as I can. I am under no illusion that anyone on THIS message board is going to be convinced, but I did want to float the position out there and see what kind of response it received. I think I have a good feel for that now, and it's time for me to turn to venues where I might actually have a chance of making in-roads.

The task is a daunting one, but I am sure the first to consider the 19th Amendment likewise found the task daunting, and they eventually prevailed. Hopefully, the same will be true. I will turn my attention to promoting a "Repeal and Replace" agenda in other places, and leave others to hash it out here.

Last word to you folks (for now)

Carpout!

[TheWall]

Replace with what?

[EvoUK]

Replace with what?

[Cerebrum123]

Yes - it picks out the class of possession called "arms." You still have not shown why this class of possession deserves special status. I have suggested three reasons why it does not.

Because they are used for the defense of all other rights. If you can't defend your rights, then they might as well not exist.

[One Bad Pig]

OK - I have spent more time today on this than I really wanted to spend - and were down to the same cast of characters and the same exchanges repeated ad infinitum. I have made my case a cogently as I can. I am under no illusion that anyone on THIS message board is going to be convinced, but I did want to float the position out there and see what kind of response it received. I think I have a good feel for that now, and it's time for me to turn to venues where I might actually have a chance of making in-roads.

The task is a daunting one, but I am sure the first to consider the 19th Amendment likewise found the task daunting, and they eventually prevailed. Hopefully, the same will be true. I will turn my attention to promoting a "Repeal and Replace" agenda in other places, and leave others to hash it out here.

Last word to you folks (for now)

Carpout!

You're seriously using the example of an amendment to affirm rights to advocate for an amendment removing rights?

It's no wonder you're skedaddling.

[seer]

The the vast majority of humanity valued "guns" and the role they play in human life, we would generally see it as an "inherent right." An "inherent right" is nothing more than one that the vast majority of humanity says is inherent to our being as humans. Life is an inherent right because we pretty much all value life. Happiness - same thing. Liberty - same thing.

So the vast majority of mankind wouldn't defend their right to life and liberty with the most efficient or best weapon available? If someone came at you with a knife what you rather have in your hand - a pistol or a daisy?