In the context of the US Bill of Rights,...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

...what is a right? (In your opinion)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. Is the RKBA an individual right,...

...like the others listed in the Bill of Rights? Why or why not?

[slackmaster]

7. Security of a free state includes the security of every individual, family, or other group

If some individuals are secure and some are not, the state is not secure.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

47. To that end...

Bujinkan Ninpo Taijutsu has a direct lineage spanning over 900 years from the current Soke, Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi to its founding in ancient Japan. The creators of this art were inhabitants of the Iga region of Japan and the families that founded the art did so as a means to protect the members of their family, their friends, and their village.

Dr. Hatsumi was once asked to describe the essence of Ninpo and he replied that it was sitting on the porch of one's home and watching one's grandchildren play in the yard. When I recognize the cause of suffering in my life and I follow the way to eliminate that suffering, I have taken the first step. However, I quickly discover that in order for me to be happy, I must help create a safe and happy environment for my wife and family. Then, I discover that in order for my family to be safe and happy I must work to ensure that my neighborhood is safe and happy. But in order to ensure that my neighborhood is safe and happy, I must work to ensure that my town is safe. Therefore, if I want to be able to peacefully sit on my porch and watch my grandchildren play I must ensure a safe world in which that may occur.

Please see the full article at: a-human-right

[DWC]

13. RKBA is an individual, not social, right

All Rights recognized in the Constitution are directed to the individual citizen. Though the sovereignty of States is addressed, the sovereignty of the individual is the basis for our Democratically elected, Republican form of government.

We are free to act individually within the confines of the Constitution. We are responsible for our actions individually within the confines of Constitutionally compliant Law.

Semper Fi,

[SteveM]

61. Rights recognized and protected by the Constitution are individual...

and not "communal" or the province of "states." States and the U.S. government have powers; individuals within the U.S. have rights. The Second is couched similarly to the Fourth in that the "people" are individuals; in the Fourth, the people cannot be seen as a "community," since within the same sentence of this right is the demand that the person(s) be named.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. Who has rights?

Citizens, permanent residents, visitors, everyone on US soil...?

[petronius]

26. That's an interesting question, and it came up a bit in a thread recently about an

unauthorized immigrant charged with possessing a firearm. My feeling is that if we take the position that the rights enumerated in the BoR existed prior to the Constitution, and the BoR simply protects those rights from government interference, then everyone has them. So as a general proposition I think all the Constitutional rights in the BoR, including the 2nd, should apply to anyone on US soil to the extent practically possible...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. I have frequently considered...

...this question and have several thoughts.

The idea that rights are universal is obvious after even casual consideration. The idea that certain of those rights can be suspended pending a criminal/civil proceeding is also rather obvious.

I believe that those here as permanent residents for sure deserve the same protections as citizens. Those here as guests (students, tourists... or at the convenience of our or other governments (diplomats) while being protected have limited rights subject to our government's restrictions.

One aspect I think about is the terror watch list. How should this impact on the rights of non-residents?

[X_Digger]

31. Not everyone on our soil has every right..

ie, the right to vote doesn't apply to visitors, but the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment is.

Some of that distinction falls under the 'privileges or immunities' protected by the 14th, others are more basic, like those protected by the Bill of Rights.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

45. The Constitution...

...assigns to the various states the duty to set the standards and rules for voting.

[SteveM]

62. Probably all, unless there is proven subterfuge in claiming...

legal status or citizenship. In this case, rights may be circumscribed, especially by the State Department.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. By way of explaination...

...I'm asking for a definition. In the context of the discussion here, the RKBA is often a topic and I'm asking how all of you define a "right".

[RC]

4. Rights exist because we do, not because government grants them to us.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. All authority...

...is vested in the people, any authority of government is derived therefrom and is bound to, above all else, protect the rights and liberties of the people.

[damntexdem]

5. States have a right to a well-organized militia.

The SCOTUS says this means individuals have a right to own guns. I disagree with that, but that could still be accommodated in gun-control laws. There is no right to own an assault weapon -- that is an antisocial idiocy that has been perpetrated on our country, and resulted in perpetrating additional violence in Mexico.

[rrneck]

9. The people have a right to keep and bear arms. mt

[RC]

34. And the militia you belong to is...?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. See below.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia (and by extension due to subsequent amendments to the Constitution all men and women of whatever race...)

A measure passed by congress near in time to the enactment of the Bill of Rights in the context of defining who is the 'militia'.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

42. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms...

...is not dependent upon militia service.

Hence, your question is pointless.

[RC]

75. So when then does it mention militia in the first place?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

76. If I might presume...

...to infer that you mean 'why does it mention the militia', the reference is by way of making it understood that although there is no standing army there was a means to raise one quickly from among the many armed and trained citizens. 200 years ago the term 'regulated' implied effective. So for a militia to be effective, it must be composed of body that possess the skill at arms and is actually armed and practiced.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

86. It is what is known as a "prefatory clause"...

...which was a pretty common way to write in those days.

If a similar structure were used today, it would be written about like this:

"Because a well armed populace is necessary to ensure the freedom of a nation, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Consider this sentence:

"A well-educated voter being necessary to a properly functioning government, the right to keep and read books shall not be infringed".

Would you take that to mean that ONLY voters could read and then only about governmental concerns? Of course not - only the most obtuse would even attempt to interpret the sentence in that fashion.

So it is with the 2nd Amendment. The initial clause is merely one of many reasons, but the actual declarative portion is reserved to the people.

[rrneck]

53. Too old for both.

But I'm a person.

[Xicano]

68. United States Code: 10 USC 311

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html


(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[gejohnston]

14. pleas expand

There is no right to own an assault weapon -- that is an antisocial idiocy that has been perpetrated on our country, and resulted in perpetrating additional violence in Mexico.

Please explain. If it is about a state militia, then a "assault weapon" (a meaningless propaganda buzz word, not a technical term) would be protected more than a "sporting" rifle.
Since the overwhelming majority of weapons are full auto and crew serviced weapons moved through their southern border, stolen from their own military, and purchased from abroad. As for "perpetrating additional violence" that falls on the war on drugs and drug users.

[RC]

36. "sporting" rifle - Now there is a contradiction in terms.

I'm sure the target wouldn't think it was very sporting.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. Maybe you could take a survey and report back. n/t

[SteveM]

64. Actually, you are off-target...

"sporting rifles" can be used for both hunting and target shooting. Unless you wish to start a thread of the advisability of hunting, or the compassionate consequences of shooting tin cans or paper targets, your comments have no relevancy to this thread.

[oneshooter]

72. Non of the paper or steel targets I shoot at have complained. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

74. Any valid "target" that is complaining about being shot....

...has not been "sufficiently" shot.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. re: "...no right to own an assault weapon..."

Are you saying that there is no right to a weapon that could be used in an assault? Please define assault weapon.

[beevul]

24. So much fail.

"States have a right..."


No. Only individuals and groups of individuals have rights.



States have powers not rights.

Rights and powers stand in direct opposition to each other.


The bill of rights including the second amendment authorizes NOTHING.

It forbids. Those things it forbids apply to government, specifically.


You might bother...I dunno...educating yourself on the fundamentals of how it all works, before making such ignorant statements.

[Atypical Liberal]

30. A well-regulated militia, made up of THE PEOPLE.

Yes, the founders said that militias are necessary to the security of a free state.

But they reserved the right to keep and bear arms to the people, not the militias.

The Constitution is quite clear on this, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Not the right of the state, nor of the militia.

There is no right to own an assault weapon -- that is an antisocial idiocy that has been perpetrated on our country, and resulted in perpetrating additional violence in Mexico.

The arms that are protected are small arms appropriate for use in a militia. That includes assault weapons. In the founders' day, assault weapons were muzzle loaders. Today they are not, but that is neither here nor there.

The intent was a decentralized military system, made up of state-controlled militias, made up of armed citizens.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. As you see it...

...what would be the difference between a militia (organized or not) and an army?

[Atypical Liberal]

46. Militias are made up of part-timers, armies are not.

As you see it......what would be the difference between a militia (organized or not) and an army?

Militias are made up of citizens who serve as soldiers on a part-time or as-needed basis. The Army is made up of semi-permanent employees - soldiers.

Militias are decentralized and controlled by the states, the Army is controlled by the central Federal government.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

41. Since the bill of rights...

...limits only government, and the government is not granted any authority to restrict weapons ownership, your theory fails logically, grammatically and legally.

Thank you for playing. You fail

[Euromutt]

48. A state is an abstract artificial construct; how can it have rights?

Your assertion is particularly ironic in light of your sig line, given that a state is no more a natural person than a corporation. Insofar as states have "rights" it is as an aggregate of the rights of their inhabitants' right to self-determination.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

50. The misnomer "state's rights"...

Is probably derived from the Bill of Rights. Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This is correctly referred to therein as "powers".

[iverglas]

56. read any international law lately?

A state is an abstract artificial construct; how can it have rights?

Good lord.

Yes, Virginia, there are different kinds of rights.

Rights assigned by contract ... or, oh, international treaty ... are rights.

In a federal or confederated state, it is not inaccurate to refer to the rights of the component elements as against the central government.

A state can also be an exercise of a group's collective rights -- groups have rights to self-determination.

Insofar as states have "rights" it is as an aggregate of the rights of their inhabitants' right to self-determination.

So no, that's a nonsense. Peoples have rights collectively, and the formation of a state is an exercise of those collective rights. Once a state is formed, the state has rights qua state, vis-à-vis other states in particular.

[SteveM]

63. Actually, the state has the power to organize militia, not a right...

"There is no right to own an assault weapon."

There is a right to own most ANY firearm which is designed and can be fired from one or both hands. Only in the case of full-auto weapons (in most cases, properly called machine guns or assault rifles), or in the case of weapons "not suitable for combat," can the government (under past laws and rulings) effect strong regulation. So a person who wants to own a semi-auto AK-47, or any AR-15 platformed rifle can indeed own them without any further regulation than the NICS test and age limitations where such exist.

"that is an antisocial idiocy that has been perpetrated on our country, and resulted in perpetrating additional violence in Mexico."

This has no bearing on the discussion.

[slackmaster]

6. A sovreignty to act without permission from someone else.

Something akin to a privilege, but possessed by default at birth rather than being granted or bought.

[DWC]

11. So long as that action...

does not infringe on the rights of others.

Semper Fi,

[hack89]

22. Within limits

the potential to infringe is not ground for preemptive restrictions. And those limits on civil rights must be the least restrictive to accomplish the intended effect. In our legal system, the standard is called Strict Scrutiny.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. There is also,...

...in the case of 1A freedoms, the example of what is termed "prior restraint".

Numerous cases (Near v. Minnesota 1931, New York Times Co. v. United States 1971...) make clear the reasoning behind this concept.

[rrneck]

8. The freedom to

exercise personal identity and self determination.

You have a right to be who you are and live your life as you please. Of course, your rights stop at the other guys nose. Those limits are called responsibilities.

[Oneka]

10. A right

In the context of the BOR, is simply this.
A restriction on governmental authority.

[Hoyt]

12. A right, or not -- the Constitution does not require people to carry in public.

[ileus]

15. Lucky for us the State(s) do allow us to carry in public.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

51. I don't think luck is involved.

:toast:

[SteveM]

66. Precisely. What a state "allows" it can take away. nt

[Remmah2]

17. Who's requiring anything?

To deny it is an infringement.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

52. I've seen nothing about a requirement to carry...

...but in the Kennesaw, GA municipal code Part II Chapter 34 Article II section 34-21 reads:
"(a)
In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b)
Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony."


"Kennesaw once again was in the news on May 1, 1982, when the city unanimously passed a law requiring "every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition." After passage of the law, the burglary rate in Kennesaw declined and even today, the City has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County."

Of course it is said that the highway through Cobb County has only a FAR RIGHT LANE.

:dilemma:

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. As I understand it...

...the BoR acts as a protection of the rights of individuals. The Bill of Rights protects, from government interference, the abilities of individuals to exercise their liberties but never compel their exercise. :)

[hack89]

23. So? It does not give the government the right to prohibit it either.

the doctrine of Strict Scrutiny is the governing legal concept - it explains why gun-control advocates are on such a losing streak.

[RSillsbee]

28. It doesn't forbid it either NT

[We_Have_A_Problem]

43. The government does not need to be forbidden...

...to do something. By not having explicit authority, it is by definition forbidden. That is the nature of our system of government.

For example, the Constitution also does not forbid government specifically from requiring you to wear green pants every other Tuesday. Obviously if such a law were to pass, it would be tossed on any number of grounds.

[RSillsbee]

60. You may actually want to read my post in context

before commenting

[SteveM]

65. You misread the Constitution...

The Constitution restrains government from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms; it does not seek to "require" people to have, wear or carry guns or anything else. Straw man.

[Hoyt]

77. Point is, those who can't leave home without a gun or two can reconsider what their bad habit

does to society. I know most won't because they can't envision venturing out in public without them.

[oneshooter]

79. If there was a negitive effect on society, where is the massive cry to outlaw CC.

And where is the picture of a "cowboy with two guns pointed out." Was that a lie to the rest of us? Are you capable of telling the truth?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rl6214]

81. Don't you EVER get tired of your shtick?

Can you point out anyone that "can't leave home without a gun or two"?

Surely you can cite a person or two stating that they can't leave home without a gun or two.

[oneshooter]

73. Does ir require you to show your "cowboy" picture? n/t

[Hoyt]

78. Just for you Oneshooter, photos and videos. Don't stay up all night with them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRt_xBl7dLU&feature=related

http://warriortalknews.typepad.com/.a/6a0133ec985af6970b0133f2ce769b970b-pi

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/19/gun-rally-second-amendmen_n_542872.html#s82322&title=The_Cavalry_Arrives

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/19/gun-rally-second-amendmen_n_542872.html#s82333&title=Its_Been_A

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/19/gun-rally-second-amendmen_n_542872.html#s82348&title=Spirit_Of_1776

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRef8F7JXjo&feature=related

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/19/gun-rally-second-amendmen_n_542872.html#s82430

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/19/gun-rally-second-amendmen_n_542872.html#s82433&title=GOP_Congressman_Take

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/19/gun-rally-second-amendmen_n_542872.html#s82466&title=State_Of_War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCLgvRK8Bds&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v7GU3-qMSk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wlBUA_vXD8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFCeBjYOr2s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Isy0wvmnw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx1VWLt18lg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9fJuMJe6XY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfW0bBgnSFw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tqXTtlkUA0&feature=related

http

[rl6214]

82. I looked at just a couple but

they weren't pictures of cowboys.

[Hoyt]

84. "Cowboy" = 21st Century gunners who believe their guns prepare them to "save the day" in public.

There were a bunch of those in those links. And a bunch of them are a little too obsessed with their guns, fast drawing, loads, blasting away and all that goes with it to be safe in public. When you look at that stuff, it is quite sickening.

I think everyone running for government should be made to look at that stuff and see exactly what is walking around in public with a gun or two.

[rl6214]

80. Who said anything about requiring

aside from you?

Required, no, permitted, yes.

[beevul]

85. It doesn't require you to engage in speech in public either. N/T

[hack89]

20. They are inalienable rights that are self evident and universal

They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government.

That's why they were added to the Constitution - as a clear limit on the powers of government.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. Agreed. n/t

[Francis Marion]

27. Core Beliefs of our English/American Heritage

Non-rights:
You have to ask, and obtain, permission to exercise a privilege.

Rights:
You exercise a right as you choose, within agreed-upon parameters called law.

A right belongs to a set of volitional choices that a free person can make, and that people and government must respect and preserve.

A right is an endowment by our Creator: a philosophical, political, moral set of non-negotiables- data- parameters.

The Supreme Being, not the Supreme Court, is the architect of the Rights of Man, in the cosmos of the Founders.

Society wisely maximizes and protects the space within which persons may exercise their rights through agreed upon standards.

Bad law should be resisted through civil disobedience, petitions, elections and other peaceful means.

Bad law is that which kills your rights by legislative fiat without due process of law (a jury trial.)

Law is therefore too important to hire just anybody for the job of legislator, and every election cycle should purge the legislature of derelicts who disrespect the Bill of Rights.

[gravity556]

29. It's simple.

Citizens have RIGHTS, governments have powers afforded them by the CITIZEN. This is where everyone gets confused on a representative republic with democratically elected representatives. The US is not "Mob rule!"

A rather intelligent gentlemaan once stated that democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote. :)

[iverglas]

57. it's all so easy, isn't it?

A right is an endowment by our Creator: a philosophical, political, moral set of non-negotiables- data- parameters.
The Supreme Being, not the Supreme Court, is the architect of the Rights of Man, in the cosmos of the Founders.

... until you run into the little roadblock ... that there is no "supreme being".

(You seem to be answering an argument I doubt anyone has made: that a supreme court is the architect of rights. Does someone claim this?)

First principles are a tough nut, aren't they?

Alone in a godless infinite universe, where do we get our authority??

Making up yer own authority, let alone telling someone else they have to go along, just really doesn't cut it.

[rl6214]

83. "there is no "supreme being".

That is your opinion but to many, including many of OUR founding fathers there is.

[iverglas]

89. so?

Really: so?

Put otherwise: what is your point?

I replied to someone who asserted the existence of a supreme being as some kind of FACT.

My assertion that there is no such thing is just as valid.

Actually, neither is; I am an agnostic atheist: I do not believe, and I do not know, any more than anyone else does.

I will be forgiven a bit of hyperbole, since I stated the opposite of the assertion made in order to demonstrate that the entire post, and the theory it expounded, was built on a house of cards.

I really don't care what anyone's belief about anything is, be it a random poster in this forum or a fraction of your "founding fathers". No one's beliefs govern public policy. They don't even determine their own positions on public policy, since religious beliefs do not relate to public policy at all, much as some people like to pretend that their own somehow do.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. A FURTHER QUESTION:

If you can't define rights, do you have a chance of defending them?

By what authority does the state/federal government restrict firearm ownership and carry?

[slackmaster]

37. Federal restrictions on firearms are rooted in its power to regulate interstate commerce

States claim the power to regulate use of firearms because that power is not given to the federal government.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. As I understand...

...this has an interesting application in Arizona with sales of firearms manufactured within the state.

[gejohnston]

44. I thought it was Montana

Maybe Arizona is getting in on it too. Start a Florida version called Marlin Arms?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. AN INTERESTING SIDE NOTE.

Considering that this thread is about the definition of "rights" primarily and secondarily about their impact on the RKBA it's interesting how many apparent unrecs have been assigned.


:patriot:

[iverglas]

54. maybe because the OP is dumb?

What does someone's "opinion" of a subject like this matter?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

55. I would submit...

...that whether you are for or against the RKBA, the inability to define a right and/or an attitude that disparages the task is self defeating.

[iverglas]

58. okay, how about "the OP was transparent"?

I would submit...
...that whether you are for or against the RKBA, the inability to define a right and/or an attitude that disparages the task is self defeating.

Who said anything about "the RKBA"? Certainly not moi.

As for the rest of your comment ... I love a newbie.

I practised human rights law for a long time and have continued to work in fields that require me to be expert in constitutional law, international law, human rights, collective rights, third-generation rights, you name a right and I can tell you about it.

I don't disparage the task of defining rights. I simply know that it is possible only to define rights for certain purposes, basically because that is the nature of rights: they depend on context. Human rights, fundamental rights, civil rights, constitutional rights, contractual rights, statutory rights ... lots of different contexts.

Human rights are generally agreed to be the rights that are inherent in human beings by virtue of their status of human beings ... and pretty obviously, by virtue of the consensus of human beings to say this. The content of those rights is then also a matter for determination by consensus.

There ya go. My opinion.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

59. In answer...

"Who said anything about "the RKBA"?" The context of the OP (psst... this is the 'gun' forum).

"I don't disparage the task of defining rights." I didn't say that you did. My question was rhetorical.

Being expert in human rights, would you agree that self defense is a human right?

[iverglas]

69. how's your google expertise?

Being expert in human rights, would you agree that self defense is a human right?

Being a 10-year contributor to this forum, I just suspect I've been asked, and answered, this question more than once before. It's not that I don't enjoy typing, but I have always just figured that when I'm part of an ongoing conversation, someone who decides to join it at a late point might be expected to familiarize themselves with it first.
(edit -- although you know, it's quite interesting that this whole "right to self-defence" line didn't start to rear its head in this forum until a couple of years ago. Hm.)

The answer is no.

The bare bones elaboration is: that's a nonsense.

This should help you get up to speed. I say in all sincerity; various answers to the same question are easily read via this link.

http://www.google.ca/search?complete=0&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=612&q=iverglas+%22self-defence%22+%22right+to+life%22&btnG=Google+Search

Oh look, off the top -- Master Paine has immortalized me:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TPaine7/14

But no, best read the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=238740&mesg_id=240214

and any others you spot in the search results that look interesting.

Okay, I'll summarize.

There is no "right to self-defence" because that makes no sense. A fundamental right is asserted against a collectivity, and a right being exercised in a vacuum is a ridiculous notion.

There is a right to life and a right to liberty and (in modern rights instruments like mine) a right to security of the person. These are commonly recognized "fundamental" rights: human rights, inherent in any human being. They are not rights to do specific things. They are the right not to be killed, not to be restrained, not to be harmed physically or psychologically -- by the collectivity: the state. How does a "right to self-defence" fit in there? Which one of these items does not belong ...

In virtually all human societies it has been and is considered to be excusable to use force against another person in order to avert injury or death to one's self, where particular conditions are met.

This is an exercise of the right to life: defending one's life, defending one's self against death. And throughout human history and geography, it has been and is regarded as a permissible exercise of that right. (Harming or killing another person to save one's self is not generally regarded as permissible where the other person is not the source of the threat to one's own life.)

"Self-defence" is raised in answer to a criminal charge relating to the use of such force, ranging from common assault to homicide. (We so often forget that "self-defence" actually doesn't mean "kill somebody", it refers to the use of force, which can be as minor as a shove.)

There is a right to raise self-defence in response to a criminal charge relating to the use of force against another person, and there is a right to be acquitted if one is found to have acted in self-defence, according to the relevant standard of proof.

The effort to create a "right to self-defence" in the public mind is a bit of nasty right-wing demagoguery offered up in service of the gun militant agenda (the gun militant agenda being, of course, in the service of the right wing); no more and no less.

Everyone in the US has the due process right to be acquitted of a criminal charge relating to the use of force against another person if they are found to have acted in self-defence.

How could anyone have a problem with that fact??

[hack89]

70. So it is a matter of semantics?

if framed as "an exercise of the right to life" then the private ownership of guns is OK?

[iverglas]

87. so you chose to mischaracterize everything I said?

if framed as "an exercise of the right to life" then the private ownership of guns is OK?

Make that your statement if you like, but I won't be saying anything as completely nonsensical as that myself, ta.

[hack89]

99. Because clarity of thought is not a strong trait of yours? nt.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

71. So there is...

...a right to life and in your words "...a right to be acquitted if one is found to have acted in self-defence, according to the relevant standard of proof." Yes?

[iverglas]

88. what's the question?

You quote me and ask whether I said what I said?

The phrase "asked and answered" comes to mind.

Perhaps I'm missing something. If you were just summarizing what I said, yes: there is a right to life, as a fundamental/human right, and a due process right to be acquitted if one is found to have acted in self-defence, according to the relevant standard of proof.

I should perhaps have elaborated slightly.

It would be an impermissible violation of the right to life not to permit self-defence to be raised in answer to a charge of assault/homicide, i.e., to punish someone for using force in circumstances that meet the standard of self-defence. That's a rather important bit, actually, and I should not have neglected it.

It is also necessary to require, as the law does in many places including where I am at, that the intent of the use of force in self-defence not be to kill, even if the effect is, and that only such force as is reasonably necessary be used against the assault.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

90. Clarification...

"It would be an impermissible violation of the right to life not to permit self-defence to be raised in answer to a charge of assault/homicide, i.e., to punish someone for using force in circumstances that meet the standard of self-defence."

How is this different from a right of self-defense? I get the non-fundamental right bit. Logically, then, there must be some unintended consequence (an unfortunate legal sequela let's say) by mischaracterizing self-defense as a right.

[iverglas]

91. okay

How is this different from a right of self-defense?

I guess it may not be possible to convey it to someone not steeped in rights theory (or in the situation the judge found herself in, someone with an agenda and not listening, by which I am not referring to you) -- but it simply makes no sense.

There is no right to use force against another person. People's right to life and security of the person requires that a society prohibit the use of force against them.

Self-defence is an exception to that prohibition. It applies to an act. Self-defence is a term that describes an act, not a right. It is a permitted act when it meets certain parameters.

Eating pizza is an act. It is an exercise of the right to life and liberty: to stay alive by eating, to choose one's own diet. Would it be reasonable to ask a potential appointee to the United States Supreme Court (or anyone else) whether she believes there is a right to eat pizza? It would be reasonable for her to reply that there is a right to life and a right to liberty and that a legislative prohibition on eating pizza would violate those rights. Not "there is a right to eat pizza".

The effort to portray self-defence as a "right" is all in service of an agenda: the gun militant agenda. Nobody else is yammering about it.

No one really believes that gun control advocates do not believe that individuals are entitled to act in self-defence.

Why, then, is it only gun militants who keep trying to generate a public fuss about this alleged "right to self-defence"? Would not any reasonable person be concerned if they thought they did not "have a right to defend themself"? What is the actual point of all the noise? Has anyone told gun militants that they may not defend themselves against assault?

We all know what it's about. It's about gun militants demanding that there be no restrictions on their access to firearms whenever and wherever they choose.

The right to defend one's self, i.e. to exercise the right to life and security by using force to protect one's life and limb, existed before firearms did. It has nothing to do with firearms.

Restrictions on access to firearms are not a violation of "the right to self-defence" because there is no such right.

So your question really needs reframing; not:

Logically, then, there must be some unintended consequence (an unfortunate legal sequela let's say) by mischaracterizing self-defense as a right.

but, from the gun militant perspective, since there is much to gain by claiming there is a "right to self-defence": Logically, then, there must be an intended consequence (a desired legal sequela) by mischaraterizing self-defence as a right.

They would then be able to represent restrictions on access to firearms as a violation of this oh so fundamental god-given right of theirs, the "right to self-defence". Which is, of course, exactly what they do.

The fact is that people are excused for using force against another person if they do so in self-defence. That's all a normal person needs to know.

The issue of access to firearms is one of public policy in which many of society's interests are in play along with any that an individual can assert against such policies.

Gun militants don't like that at all. If they could get society to say that they have a fundamental / natural / god-given right to tote firearms around, they'd be a whole lot happier.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

92. Might I infer...

...within this context, that there is no "right" to keep and bear arms?

[iverglas]

93. a constitutional right

is not necessarily a fundamental/human right.

There is a right in your constitution to "keep and bear arms" (without going into the content of that right).

There is a right in my constitution to communicate with and receive services from the federal government in either English or French.

In Canada, I don't have rights that are specific to the US constitution. In the US, you don't have rights that are specific to the Cdn constitution.

There is a right to vote in my constitution: the right of Cdn citizens to vote in Canada. If there were a right to vote in your constitution, it would be the right of US citizens to vote in the US.

Some of the rights common to both our constitutions, like life and liberty, are also set out in international instruments and are recognized by global consensus as "inherent" and "inalienable".

Different kinds of rights. The right to vote in my constitution isn't inherent in human beings, or inalienable. Just like the right to keep and bear arms in yours isn't. ;)

It's still a right, just like the right to vote.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

94. How can this be reconciled with your position?

"(d)The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States. Pp. 19–33.
(1)The Court must decide whether that right is fundamental to the Nation’s scheme of ordered liberty, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391
U. S. 145, 149, or, as the Court has said in a related context, whether it is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721. Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right."
(from MCDONALD v. CHICAGO) Emphasis is mine.

[iverglas]

95. I give up

How is that NOT reconcilable with my position?

What I said was quite clear.

Not all rights enshrined in a constitution are the same. Not all rights enshrined in a constitution are fundamental or human rights.

Some are "civil rights": the rights that citizens of a particular country (or people otherwise subject to and granted rights under that country's laws) have because of that status.

Rights like life and liberty are universally recognized as fundamental/human rights.

Rights like "keep and bear arms" and "communicate with the federal government in either official language" are rights that a constitution recognizes as belong to, or grants to, people subject to that country's laws only.

People in the US have the right to life and the right to liberty as human beings. They have those rights inside and outside the USofA. Just as the most undocumented of criminals in the US have those rights inside and outside the US.

Your "right to keep and bear arms" ENDS when you cross the border or get on an international flight.

I seriously do not know what point of mine you were replying to or what issue you were addressing.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

96. Let's just conclude and remain friendly.

Okay, I'll summarize.

There is no "right to self-defence" because that makes no sense.

"(d)The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States. Pp. 19–33.
(1)The Court must decide whether that right is fundamental to the Nation’s scheme of ordered liberty, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391
U. S. 145, 149, or, as the Court has said in a related context, whether it is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721. Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right."
(from MCDONALD v. CHICAGO) Emphasis is mine.

While I am grateful for the perspective you've shared and also want to remain gracious, I don't think our conflicting ideologies are reconcilable.
Thank you sincerely for your patience and have a great weekend.

[iverglas]

97. sorry, I disregarded the boldface

I thought you were replying to something in my previous post.

... Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right."
(from MCDONALD v. CHICAGO) Emphasis is mine.

You've quoted a US court -- specifically, the US Supreme Court, and more specifically:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

ALITO, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–C, IV, and V, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., join. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.

You have "authority" for that statement because it was made by an authoritative body -- authoritative in the US and nowhere else.

Self-defence indeed is and has been long and widely recognized, as I said, as an excuse for the use of force against another person.

And now, in fact, here is the authority that Alito cites for his claim:

15 Citing Jewish, Greek, and Roman law, Blackstone wrote that if a person killed an attacker, “the slayer is in no kind of fault whatsoever, not even in the minutest degree; and is therefore to be totally acquitted and discharged, with commendation rather than blame.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 182 (reprint 1992).

You see how that does not even say what he claimed??

The slayer is in no kind of fault whatsoever; and the rest. Excused. No blame attached. Exactly what I said. NOT what Alito said. Not at all. Nowhere there does it say that there is a "right to self-defence". It says the person is to be aquitted and discharged. Exactly what I ... and Sotomayor before the committee ... said.


While I am grateful for the perspective you've shared and also want to remain gracious, I don't think our conflicting ideologies are reconcilable.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity for dialogue as well.

But I'm afraid that the things that are not reconcilable are your ideology and centuries of common law and rights theory. ;)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

98. Thanks.

:toast:

[SteveM]

67. "...I love a newbie." Alas! You once loved me. oh, woe is me. nt