User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 3:22:42 PM EDT
[#1]
I agree wholeheartedly with the OP, and have been saying it for years in exactly the same argument. Responses tend to range from blank stare, to a quizzical "WTF?" look, to something along the lines of "1A protects us from having to believe in God"... I occasionally get a "take a xanax" type response, because I do tend to get worked up a bit about my rights.
FWIW, one of my most referenced founding father quotes happens to be found on the Jefferson Memorial, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 5:41:48 PM EDT
[#2]
As you noted, many or most on the left revile the thought of Natural Law and the philosophies that came about during the Enlightenment. To them, humanism and moral relativism is the highest order. Totally different plateau. But I agree 100% with you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 6:46:30 PM EDT
[#3]
Excellent post OP
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 8:35:15 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then we only need to redefine the meaning of "natural right" and its bearing to human existence, while diminishing any discussion or recognition of a so-called "Creator". A politically correct redefinition of natural rights makes the Second Amendment an empty statement, while allowing the growth of new, progressive natural rights, like a "right to healthcare", a "right to housing", a "right to a liveable wage", and a "right to safety and security". Beware... that's exactly what's coming. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 8:39:47 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As you noted, many or most on the left revile the thought of Natural Law and the philosophies that came about during the Enlightenment. To them, humanism and moral relativism is the highest order. Totally different plateau. But I agree 100% with you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 8:40:37 PM EDT
[#6]
The problem with a rational argument or explanation is that the irrational are completely immune to them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 8:44:29 PM EDT
[#7]
Repeal of the Second Amendment means that the United States no longer exists. We literally would not be a country without its inclusion into the Bill of Rights.
Anyone who advocates this is literally a TRAITOR. Fuck them. It will mean war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 9:03:41 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would not go so far as to argue that the Constitution is an enumeration of natural rights or a natural rights document. It's basically the blueprint for a Republican form of government. The Bill of Rights is a different story. The BoR is clearly an enumeration of our natural rights as human beings. Some of those rights originate with the creation of mankind and some are related to our relationship with governments created by man. Rights such as freedom of speech, the right to self-defense (through the 2nd Amendment), the right to be secure in your home and possessions, etc., are the original natural rights that existed from the moment mankind came into being. No temporal government has the right to deny us these rights as they were not granted to us by any government. They exist outside government; they exist by virtue of us all being human beings. IMO, the removal of the 2nd Amendment from the BoR is meaningless. The right continues to exist, no matter if it's enumerated or not enumerated. The right exists for all human beings and cannot be taken away by force or by legislation. However, the removal of the 2nd Amendment would be a signal that the tree of liberty is due to be refreshed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 9:04:32 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In before someone comes in and claims we don't have any "rights" because a stronger force can violate them at will.  However, if you are in the minority in your opinion regardless of the right or wrong of it. And the majority OR the authority disagree with you and murder you for your opinion. You are then dead and have no rights at all on this earth. Mao was at a very basic level was correct with the statement all power comes from the barrel of a gun. By that statement "right" and rights are only pertinent if you are tough enough to violently insist that you have them if necessary. In my opinion today our society cares not for right, moral or ethical. In short no one really cares about one another except on a very superficial level. As in how will this relationship benefit me. This callous attitude combined with the insane being allowed to walk among us medicated....or not. And our societies fake tolerance that Is actually most intolerant and hateful. All of this IS the major cause of henious crimes ending in mass casulties. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 9:11:24 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then we only need to redefine the meaning of "natural right" and its bearing to human existence, while diminishing any discussion or recognition of a so-called "Creator". A politically correct redefinition of natural rights makes the Second Amendment an empty statement, while allowing the growth of new, progressive natural rights, like a "right to healthcare", a "right to housing", a "right to a liveable wage", and a "right to safety and security". Beware... that's exactly what's coming. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is a Natural Law document. It presumes the existence of rights antecedent to and independent of it own creation and existence. Take a look at the text of the 1st, 2d, 4th, and 9th Amendments. Each is cast in the negative. Each says that a right shall not be abridged, infringed, violated, or disparaged. None says "The people shall have the right . . . ." What right does the 2dAm say shall not be infringed? The right of the people to keep and bear arms. Where does this right originate? It does not come from the Amendment; the Amendment presumes that it exists. If the right existed before the Amendment was ratified, the right can only have been regarded by the Framers as what is termed a "natural" right,* an inextinguishable incident of human existence. The repeal of the 2dAm would not repeal the right to keep and bear arms. It might require us to use that right more emphatically than we have, but the right exists with or without the Amendment. * Arguments about the existence of natural rights or the soundness of Natural Law doctrines are inapposite. What is relevant is the fact that the Framers accepted the existence of Natural Law and natural rights, and our Constitution specifically alludes to some natural rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. A politically correct redefinition of natural rights makes the Second Amendment an empty statement, while allowing the growth of new, progressive natural rights, like a "right to healthcare", a "right to housing", a "right to a liveable wage", and a "right to safety and security". Beware... that's exactly what's coming. Unless you also want the government to provide every citizen a firearm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 9:15:55 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem with a rational argument or explanation is that the irrational are completely immune to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 9:17:26 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fuck off back to DU. I WANT MY FUCKING CAKE BACK!!! Worst First Post Ever |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 9:36:38 PM EDT
[#13]
Good post OP!
The left does not realize that without the 2A, we would have lost all of our freedoms years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 9:53:21 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good post OP! The left does not realize that without the 2A, we would have lost all of our freedoms years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 9:55:09 PM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 10:00:58 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The left don't care about your big fancy words. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 10:08:03 PM EDT
[#17]
Just think what it will be like when only the government has guns...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 10:08:11 PM EDT
[#18]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 10:15:54 PM EDT
[#19]
First post
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 10:35:47 PM EDT
[#20]
First post does not nail it.
Op is correct. When all is said and done the bill of rights and the constitution are pieces of paper. Our rights are what we are willing to kill and die for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 11:05:31 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then we only need to redefine the meaning of "natural right" and its bearing to human existence, while diminishing any discussion or recognition of a so-called "Creator". A politically correct redefinition of natural rights makes the Second Amendment an empty statement, while allowing the growth of new, progressive natural rights, like a "right to healthcare", a "right to housing", a "right to a liveable wage", and a "right to safety and security". Beware... that's exactly what's coming. @BikerNut , your post prompted me to think about this. A positive right is one which involves entitlement, or more simply, one which requires action by others. The progressive "rights" you listed are all positive in character. Are there any positive natural rights, or is that an oxymoronic idea? It occurs to me that a child could be said to have a right to the care of his parents, but it could just as easily be said that the duty to care for children is an inherent condition of the right to reproduce - which is itself a negative right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 11:23:35 PM EDT
[#22]
Will erasing it from the paper convince 100 million gun owners that we were wrong the whole time, and that it wasn't a right at all?
I try to explain to people who think they're being reasonable in suggesting that we abolish the amendment what's at stake, but to no avail. They refuse to acknowledge that the fire they're dancing around is capable of consuming them and others. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2018 11:41:17 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I take your point, and your warning. @BikerNut , your post prompted me to think about this. A positive right is one which involves entitlement, or more simply, one which requires action by others. The progressive "rights" you listed are all positive in character. Are there any positive natural rights, or is that an oxymoronic idea? It occurs to me that a child could be said to have a right to the care of his parents, but it could just as easily be said that the duty to care for children is an inherent condition of the right to reproduce - which is itself a negative right. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Then we only need to redefine the meaning of "natural right" and its bearing to human existence, while diminishing any discussion or recognition of a so-called "Creator". A politically correct redefinition of natural rights makes the Second Amendment an empty statement, while allowing the growth of new, progressive natural rights, like a "right to healthcare", a "right to housing", a "right to a liveable wage", and a "right to safety and security". Beware... that's exactly what's coming. @BikerNut , your post prompted me to think about this. A positive right is one which involves entitlement, or more simply, one which requires action by others. The progressive "rights" you listed are all positive in character. Are there any positive natural rights, or is that an oxymoronic idea? It occurs to me that a child could be said to have a right to the care of his parents, but it could just as easily be said that the duty to care for children is an inherent condition of the right to reproduce - which is itself a negative right. A positive right is indeed one which involves entitlement, and is one that requires action by the Government. Ever since FDR, Progressives/Socialists have wanted to replace our Republic's negative rights (things the Government CANNOT do) with a system of positive rights (things that the Government CAN do). The ridiculous "human rights" I mentioned above were actually all on FDR's wish list. Also, one could say that procreation and reproduction is a "positive natural right" but the infant's rights are negative rights: you cannot abandon me, you cannot neglect me, you cannot abuse me or harm me, and you better not motherfucking abort me either, bitch. However, I'm more inclined to look at reproduction and nuclear families as more of a biological imperative that is hardwired into our DNA. It will happen whether one considers it a right or not. But there are still a lot of fucked up people who should not pass along their genes... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2018 3:59:13 AM EDT
[#24]
That fraction is around 8/10-9/10. Should not. IMO. I'm certainly not passing on mine. I'm reasonably bright, but I'm ugly, undisciplined, overweight, and I think I'd be inexcusably cruel to force a new baby to inherit those traits. Too bad others can't restrain themselves similarly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2018 5:43:13 AM EDT
[#25]
Strange how it's pretty much only the 2nd that is constantly under attack...
People/media would freak if anyone ever went after the 1st, or any other in the same manner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2018 7:55:09 AM EDT
[#26]
Most leftist have adopted the European tradition that power flows from the government to the governed. You only have rights because the government allows you to have rights or bestows those rights upon you, which means, naturally, the government can take them away.
They fail to see that this country was intentionally founded differently, in that the power belongs to the people and flows from the people to the government. The most the government can do is protect the rights with which people are born, while the worst it can do is to infringe on those rights. That's why the constitution list those rights on which the government shall not infringe. It is specifically designed to restrict the government, not the people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2018 8:35:14 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did. Which is why I apologized. My hands moved faster than my brain processed what I read. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2018 8:42:04 AM EDT
[#28]
Sadly, since June 26, 2008 what the men who drafted the amendment thought about it has been irrelevant.
What determines what the amendment means today is what Justice Scalia unilaterally determined was "undoubtedly" in the minds of "most" Americans at the time. See Heller slip opinion at page 26. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
