Other State Gun Rights -vs- Private Property Rights

[American123]

Literally nothing in my post asked on any way, shape or form where laws come from

Correction, you said this:

Starting with the first one, "life" if I have an "inalienable right" to my life and no human laws can restrain or repeal that right, if I need food to exerciser my right to stay alive why can't I just take whatever food I need to exercise that right?

If you have a right to life you also have a right to use that life to go procure through means of your own labor, your own food. It is not a right of yours to take from someone else what doesn't belong to you. If that were the case you are now talking about "natural law" which is to say the strongest exploit the weakest as often and much as they please.

My comment on the ten commandments was regarding and related to laws that have been bedrock of human civilization for thousands of years. Because theft is parasitic to a functioning society.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold though it costs him all the wealth of his house.

 

[RX-79G]

You're trying to paint this as an either or. You either have complete and total freedom to do whatever you want (inalienable rights) or you are subject to limitations of those rights and they can be regulated as much as is "reasonable" (entirely subjective).

You're trying to paint it as "rape and murder is totally cool if it is in pursuit of happiness" the founders wrote the constitution, and the bill of rights, and also simultaneously lived in a society where certain actions were not allowed because, why? Because they were merely rules to be followed? or was there a deeper emphasis on what was right and what was wrong and why some behaviors were completely acceptable and some were not?

That difference there is why you're tunneling toward a "pick one" outcome is incorrect.

It isn't an outcome. I have pointed out - and you have largely agreed - that your rules for discerning which rights are absolute and which aren't are arbitrary, unfounded or illogical.

So either they are arbitrary, they are all absolute, or they are all non-absolute. And I am pointing out that lawmakers and courts have always treated them as non-absolute rather than arbitrary or absolute. You can certainly make a case for that being wrong, but it doesn't sound like you're going to be able to.


Keep in mind that I am not advocating for an outcome. I am not in favor of gun control, except to point out that every time we observe the police disarm a suspect - that is gun control, and the kind we all seem to like. The point of me having this argument is to point out the extreme uselessness of insisting any right is absolute when you are desperately trying to preserve that right. It leads to bad tactics and bad outcomes.

We embraced gun laws when we pushed for concealed carry licensing in all states. And that lead to more liberty. There ought to be a lesson in that.

 

[American123]

People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold though it costs him all the wealth of his house.

Great quote it shows right there that thieves have to pay a penalty for their thievery. Therefore if a penalty is exacted for an action it is wrong.

 

[American123]

It isn't an outcome. I have pointed out - and you agreed - that your rules for discerning which rights are absolute and which aren't are arbitrary, unfounded or illogical.

So either they are arbitrary, they are all absolute, or they are all non-absolute. And I am pointing out that lawmakers and courts have always treated them as non-absolute rather than arbitrary or absolute. You can certainly make a case for that being wrong, but it doesn't sound like you're going to be able to.


Keep in mind that I am not advocating for an outcome. I am not in favor of gun control, except to point out that every time we observe the police disarm a suspect - that is gun control, and the kind we all seem to like. The point of me having this argument is to point out the extreme pointlessness of insisting any right is absolute when you are desperately trying to preserve that right. It leads to bad tactics and bad outcomes.

We embraced gun laws when we pushed for concealed carry licensing in all states. And that lead to more liberty. There ought to be a lesson in that.

Conceal carry licensing in all states first postulates the notion that the entire process of concealed carry permits is constitutional in the first place which it is not. If a person has to get a permit in order to exercise the right to bear arms that is clearly an infringement.

 

[RX-79G]

Conceal carry licensing in all states first postulates the notion that the entire process of concealed carry permits is constitutional in the first place which it is not. If a person has to get a permit in order to exercise the right to bear arms that is clearly an infringement.

Sure. And that is the sort of pointless logic that was ignored in favor of a tactic that actually expanded rights for firearms owners. And now many places have constitutional carry as a result.

Why are gun rights people so intent on going down with the ship? Who loses their rights on purpose out of principle? Pure craziness.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Yeah, I'm on mobile waiting for a repairman to fix our washer so I got sloppy my quoting I'll be back later on desktop

 

[American123]

Sure. And that is the sort of pointless logic that was ignored in favor of a tactic that actually expanded rights for firearms owners. And now many places have constitutional carry as a result.

Why are gun rights people so intent on going down with the ship? Who loses their rights on purpose out of principle? Pure craziness.

To say "we expanded gun rights with more permitting" is like saying, "I'm free because my cage is smaller."

If it can be supplied through government decree it can also be taken away equally. That's the emphasis behind whether something is a right or not. Permit = not a right.

 

[RX-79G]

To say "we expanded gun rights with more permitting" is like saying, "I'm free because my cage is smaller."

If it can be supplied through government decree it can also be taken away equally. That's the emphasis behind whether something is a right or not. Permit = not a right.

It wasn't government decree. It was the lobbying of the voters that made something previously rare and weird seem desirable and normal. It was a HUGE public relations success, similar to how LBGT turned outrage at prejudice against them into acceptance. Or the civil rights movement, or women's suffrage. The majority came around to believing that carrying a gun in accordance with regulation was reasonable, even though it was almost never practiced anywhere before.

What you don't seem to understand is that getting SCOTUS to see things your way is also just government decree. If the majority of the US starts to see guns as just plain bad, they will pass an Amendment and SCOTUS will ratify it. Same thing that happened to slavery and suffrage.


What works - appealing to the majority that worry that the police can't protect them. Stuff like BLM is an opportunity, because it underlines the idea that we are all our own keepers.

What doesn't work - declaring a legal concept that is illogical and legally unfounded is a fact, when no lawyer would agree to that fact. Having white separatists do your campaigning. Sexy slogans like "cold dead hands". Attaching the issue to only one party. There are lots of liberals and minorities in the US that support gun ownership, but they don't want to make common cause with people that despise them. (As many posts on this forum make clear.)

 

[American123]

It wasn't government decree. It was the lobbying of the voters that made something previously rare and weird seem desirable and normal. It was a HUGE public relations success, similar to how LBGT turned outrage at prejudice against them into acceptance. Or the civil rights movement, or women's suffrage. The majority came around to believing that carrying a gun in accordance with regulation was reasonable, even though it was almost never practiced anywhere before.

What you don't seem to understand is that getting SCOTUS to see things your way is also just government decree. If the majority of the US starts to see guns as just plain bad, they will pass an Amendment and SCOTUS will ratify it. Same thing that happened to slavery and suffrage.


What works - appealing to the majority that worry that the police can't protect them. Stuff like BLM is an opportunity, because it underlines the idea that we are all our own keepers.

What doesn't work - declaring a legal concept that is illogical and legally unfounded is a fact, when no lawyer would agree to that fact. Having white separatists do your campaigning. Sexy slogans like "cold dead hands". Attaching the issue to only one party. There are lots of liberals and minorities in the US that support gun ownership, but they don't want to make common cause with people that despise them. (As many posts on this forum make clear.)

Carrying a concealed gun on your person, "rare and weird."

INTERACTIVE FIREARMS TRAINING

firearm license, gun permit, Second amendment, bill of rights

concealedcarryftlauderdale.com

Laws go back 200 years where government has passed laws restricting such (infringement).

I agree that it is a "win" to have conceal carry permits become more expansive and constitutional carry has taken hold across many states - but all of that is still under that umbrella of "loss" that it required more government laws to get us back closer to what was already written in the constitution.

Because, as I assert again, if it was put back into law by people today, it can be taken away by the law by people in the future, still relegating it to a privilege rather than a right that may not be infringed upon.

 

[RX-79G]

Carrying a concealed gun on your person, "rare and weird."

INTERACTIVE FIREARMS TRAINING

firearm license, gun permit, Second amendment, bill of rights

concealedcarryftlauderdale.com

Laws go back 200 years where government has passed laws restricting such (infringement).

I agree that it is a "win" to have conceal carry permits become more expansive and constitutional carry has taken hold across many states - but all of that is still under that umbrella of "loss" that it required more government laws to get us back closer to what was already written in the constitution.

Because, as I assert again, if it was put back into law by people today, it can be taken away by the law by people in the future, still relegating it to a privilege rather than a right that may not be infringed upon.

It has little to do with whether there is a law, but whether there is a will to pass the law and keep the institution it creates. And that's what happened.

This principle could be cloned and re-used many times over. We could have created our own self-reporting system for private background checks, and then argued that a system like WA is unnecessary, preventing what we have here now. Costs would have been lower, further erosion of buying rights prevented, and a refutation of the idea that gun people want to assist criminals forestalled. But our side is too stupid or stubborn to take that sort of initiative and own the issue. We'll end up with universal background checks anyway, but they will be slow and expensive - which is the actual erosion of our rights.

 

[American123]

It has little to do with whether there is a law, but whether there is a will to pass the law and keep the institution it creates. And that's what happened.

This principle could be cloned and re-used many times over. We could have created our own self-reporting system for private background checks, and then argued that a system like WA is unnecessary, preventing what we have here now. Costs would have been lower, further erosion of buying rights prevented, and a refutation of the idea that gun people want to assist criminals forestalled. But our side is too stupid or stubborn to take that sort of initiative and own the issue. We'll end up with universal background checks anyway, but they will be slow and expensive - which is the actual erosion of our rights.

That's assuming the intent of the law is ultimately not steps toward total disarmament, which is the admitted goal and intent of many who support such a law.

 

[RX-79G]

That's assuming the intent of the law is ultimately not steps toward total disarmament, which is the admitted goal and intent of many who support such a law.

The law is the law. It doesn't have intents - its a piece of paper. If you can get a 'weak' law passed and forestall a strict law, you have taken away the initiative.

But everyone in favor of background checks don't see them as a step toward banning guns. Those are the people you're trying to get on your side, not the full on antis.


Like much of our other discussion, you summarize the intent to die for a principle and lost cause rather than doing things that would protect it. It is so like the South and their Lost Cause.

 

[American123]

The law is the law. It doesn't have intents - its a piece of paper. If you can get a 'weak' law passed and forestall a strict law, you have taken away the initiative.

But everyone in favor of background checks don't see them as a step toward banning guns. Those are the people you're trying to get on your side, not the full on antis.


Like much of our other discussion, you summarize the intent to die for a principle and lost cause rather than doing things that would protect it. It is so like the South and their Lost Cause.

Passing a law that says we are allowed to do something, until another law says we can't again, continues to operate under the premise that a restriction on carrying is constitutional, and therefore is forever destined to fail long term.

 

[RX-79G]

Passing a law that says we are allowed to do something, until another law says we can't again, continues to operate under the premise that a restriction on carrying is constitutional, and therefore is forever destined to fail long term.

Is the alternative, pretending that your rights are protected by divine providence, working?

 

[American123]

Is the alternative, pretending that your rights are protected by divine providence, working?

The founders never said the rights were protected by the divine, they said it was the divine that endowed us with those rights. They expected us to shoot the people who would try to infringe upon them, and protect them ourselves.

 

[RX-79G]

The founders never said the rights were protected by the divine, they said it was the divine that endowed us with those rights. They expected us to shoot the people who would try to infringe upon them, and protect them ourselves.

Well, that's another losing proposition.

 

[mhayd93]

Water is a compound of the elements Hydrogen and Oxygen.

@RX-79G and @VinnieBoomBah I can't wait for you to disagree with this statement! Please enlighten me!

 

[Lilhigbee]

Water is a compound of the elements Hydrogen and Oxygen.

@RX-79G and @VinnieBoomBah I can't wait for you to disagree with this statement! Please enlighten me!

I appreciate posts like this because it tells me who you are arguing with and reminds me why they are on my Ignore list!!

 

[RX-79G]

Blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah, blah blah; blah.

Blah, blah, blah blah blah. Blah, blah, blah. Blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah!