One of these rights is not like the others

This is another part in my zillion part series in which I annihilate the bumpersticker arguments made by the gun "rights" crowd. The bumpersticker argument in this case is "there is an inalienable right to carry guns." Now before I am accused of presenting a strawman, which is a predictable accusation, let's short-circuit that crap right away:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=372589&mesg_id=372936

This argument is made quite frequently.

A while ago, I suggested (as part of a compromise) that we eliminate all background checks for the mentally ill related to gun purchases. The sane gun owners here rebuked me, saying that they did not wish to eliminate these background checks. Of course I agree with these sane people, and I'll continue to single them out for praise. I know that you are more important than I am in this context. Since I have never fired a gun and never ever will, the gun culture will ignore me, but maybe they will listen to you.

Let's take a look at a few of the freedoms enumerated in the BOR...Speech, Religion, and Bear Arms.

No rational person would want the government to pass laws to restrict free speech or religious freedoms for those deemed to be mentally ill. Such laws would undoubtedly be evil and repressive. Yet a significant majority of people do support laws restricting the right to own firearms for the mentally ill. Either those majorities are wrong, and background checks are repressive and evil...or one of these rights is not like the others.

Also, note that the 1st amendment does not include a preamble clause such as "a well-regulated newspaper" or "a well-regulated church." The insertion of the "well-regulated militia" clause to the 2nd amendment is not accidental, as Justice Stevens has pointed out. One of these rights is not like the others.

The US government, state governments, and local/municipal governments have the power, under the constitution, to pass laws that restrict gun ownership, in terms of who is allowed to legally purchase weapons, which weapons may be carried within their jurisdictions and which weapons may be offered for sale.

God did not place that gun in your hand. Smith & Wesson did. God and Smith & Wesson are separate entities.

So let's set aside, for all times, this hyperbolic hyperventilation about "inalienable gun rights." It's bullshit and it is hereby debunked. The right to bear arms is already restricted significantly, and James Madison intended it to be restricted--which is why the 2nd amendment includes the "well-regulated militia" clause. There are REAL inalienable rights (like speech and religion) and then there are gun rights.

One of them is not like the others.

Therefore all laws restricting gun ownership for the mentally ill or violent felons would then be unconstitutional, given your reading of the 2A. All mandated background checks should be struck down.

Right?

Therefore all laws restricting gun ownership for the mentally ill or violent felons would then be unconstitutional...

Nobody is making that argument. Not one single person.

Your post is just a lame straw man.

the first post here proves that this is not a straw man.

Not one person.

that the first poster is at least consistent, even if they are a little crazy. Your position is the inconsistent one.

Or said it isn't subject to restriction through due process.

NOT ONE PERSON!

Restrictions on speech and religious freedom are based on the public safety principle, the same principle on which firearms restrictions are based.

from the op:



Based on your *cough* logic, if a right can be restricted, it's not inalienable?

What are the criteria of these 'REAL inalienable rights', eh?

Is that conflation of speech and religious freedoms with gun "rights" is an error. They are very different, which is what I said. Those persons (and there are many, many many of these) who conflate these ad nauseam and engage in this hyperbolic hyperventilation are demagogues.

That doesn't mean any right is absolute, or that one is inalienable and another is.. (alienable?)

All rights are different, but there is a legal standard by which infringement of any right must be justified by the government-- look up standard of review, 'stricy scrutiny', 'rational basis', 'intermediate scrutiny', and Marbury v Madison.

Different standards apply to different rights, much of it depending on whether or not the right is 'enumerated', 'unenumerated', 'fundamental' (in the legal sense), etc.

The second amendment protects a 'fundamental' right (McDonald), just as the first does (based on a series of cases from 1913 - 1947, iirc). On that determination, comparing legislation that infringes either is appropriate.

For example, Cantwell v Connecticut-

In 1940, in Connecticut, a solicitor of any stripe was required to obtain a license before going door to door, whether to sell vacuum cleaners, encyclopedias, or their particular flavor of religion.

Newton Cantwell and two of his sons (mormons, iirc) were proselytizing in a heavily catholic neighborhood. The trio were arrested for soliciting without a license.

Connecticut courts sided with the state. The SCOTUS disagreed- "to condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution."

Comparing adjudication about one 'fundamental' right to another 'fundamental' right is appropriate when trying to make an educated guess about how the court may treat the right protected by the second amendment, now that it has the 'fundamental' designation.

Now, this case definitely sounds as though it would make a good analogue against 'may issue' CHL licensing, as the core problem seems to be the "determination by the state" on non-concrete grounds (in this case determination about what is or isn't a valid religion, but in 'may issue' states, the language in various state laws about a 'justified reason', or 'reputation of the licensee' sounds just as vague.)

As you have conceded. Deliberately conflating things that are different is profoundly dishonest.

"The second amendment protects a 'fundamental' right (McDonald), just as the first does (based on a series of cases from 1913 - 1947, iirc). On that determination, comparing legislation that infringes either is appropriate."

McDonald is another case decided by two illegitimately appointed judges. Gun ownership is not a fundamental right, to be conflated with speech or religious freedom. As we see in the Egypt situation, speech is a fundamental right necessary for a free society to operate...gun ownership is not. Gun rights are primarily a cultural phenomenon, not necessary for a free society to operate. Many free societies operate perfectly well without regarding gun ownership as a fundamental right.

Your example conflates fundamental rights with cultural rights, and it is therefore pointless for me to address it.

I've had to correct you on that before.

Yes, it would be "alienable." Alienable is just a fancy legalese word for "can be given away."

Her modus operandi is to post garbage to any gun thread..

"all gun owners must be required to join the militia, like the constitution says nt"
"all gun owners should be required to join the militia, as the constitution says nt"
"gun owners should be required to join the militia - "A well regulated militia being necessary..." nt"
"all gun owners must be required to join the militia, like the constitution says nt"
"are you in the militia as required by the second amendment? nt"
"you only have a right to a gun if you're in the militia per 2nd amendment nt"
"if you're in the militia you have the right to bear arms nt"

"fear of a black president nt"
"gun sales soar as first BLACK president is sworn in - gee wonder who's rushing the gun stores? nt"
" having a black president has way jackkked up gun sales. hmm wonder why? nt"
"fear of a black president + right wing media hysteria egging things on nt"
"racist gun wingnuts and fear of a black president - great for business eh gun shops? nt"
"gun whackos run amok using fear of a black president nt"
" fear of a black president run amok nt"
"fear of a black president by a group which is full of racists lol nt"
"lol sales are way up amongst the fear of a black president crowd...WAY up amongst racists nt"
"fear of a black president is doing wonders for the gun industry nt"
"did they tell you a BLACK man is now president n u should run out n buy guns? nt"
"fear of black president - go out and buy lots more guns nt"
"fear of a black president is swelling your ranks for the most part imo nt"
"driven by fear of a black president, gun sales have soared in the USA :-) nt"

"the toddler was just excercising his 2nd amendment rights IF he was in the militia nt"
"nuclear weapons are "arms". every 6 year old should have some nt"
"should be legal for 5 yr olds to carry at day care centers, after all, the constitution"
"constitutution does not prohibit 5 yr olds from owning guns. free guns for all apt. kids nt"
"guns for everyone, serial killers, 5 years olds, nut cases - constitutional rights ya know nt"
"children have a right to own and shoot guns anytime they wish. no bidg deal really nt"
"students have a constitutional right to carry guns at school...there is no age listed in the"
"all kids should be allowed to carry to school - 2nd amendment does NOT probhibit this nt"
"kids at elementary school should be allowed to carry guns, 2nd amnd. doesnt say adults only nt"
"yes the 2nd amendment allows 6 year olds to take guns to school so lets allow that too :-) nt"
"2nd amendment does not prohibit gun ownership by 8 year olds anywhere they go nt"
"2nd amendment has NO RKBA age limits...6 ur olds have a right to open carry nt"
"4 year olds have an RKBA right as well according to the 2nd amendment nt"

"crazies n nuts have a constitutional right to own and use guns too nt"
" legalize al weapons - convicted felons have a constitutional right to guns ya know nt"
"parolees, probationers, nuts, serial killers - everyone has the right to own guns . "
" the constitution does NOT bar serial killers from owning guns...or 4 year olds either nt"
"2nd amendment does NOT prohibit guns on airplanes or in the hands of criminals nt"
"2nd amendment does NOT prohibit felons or 5 year olds from owning guns nt"
"criminals have a constitutional right to carry guns on airplanes - not prevented by 2nd amendment nt"
"terrorists have a right to carry guns on planes, not prohibited by 2nd amendment. nt"
"terrorists have a 2nd amnd. right to carry guns on planes - not prohibited ya know nt"
"terroristsRKBA rights are denied when they cannot open carry on airliners nt"
"terrorists & serial killers have 2nd amendment rights too ya know. nt"
"prohibiting guns on airplanes and in schools = anti-RKBA bigotry right? nt"
"unlimited protection = terrorist RKBA rights to take guns on airplanes nt"
"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed for any reason at all ever lol nt"
"2nd amendment - there are NO restrictions of any kind - kids, criminals, all have RKBA nt"

"no righteous killing to get off on in this one? nt"
"let all those gangbangers shoot a bunch of kids - its their righteous killing rights nt"
"so will the resident gun lovers call this another "righteous killing"? stay tuned ..... nt"
"is this another "righteous killing" for the gun crowd to celebrate? nt"
" "another righteous shoot" ..... jesus loves u anyway nt"
"another "righteous killing" for sure - after all that's what guns are FOR nt"
"oh this one is not righteous enough for u lololol. nt"
"the righteous killings are wonderful if a gun is used crowd disagree with you nt"
"another righteous killing in gun land...oh wait, the kid didnt die....yet nt"

good stuff msongs. Clearly getting under their skin.

Trolling, trolling trolling, keep them doggies trolling..

and these are plentiful:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x372985#372993

http://gunowners.org/fs9301.htm

You're not making any sense at all.

One who believes we never landed on the moon, 9/11 was an inside job, and that man was a vegetarian until the rise of 'patriarchal' religions?

:hi:

of the militia, except for the odd guard dog, human?

Though, rationality is rarely well-received here.

Nobody on this board denies that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to restriction through due process of law, just as is true for other enumerated rights. The term "inalienable" does not mean absolute. Nobody says that any rights are absolute, including the right to live.

So let's set aside, for all times, this hyperbolic hyperventilation about "inalienable gun rights." It's bullshit and it is hereby debunked.

You're the one who brought up the discussion, HankyDubs. Nobody else on this forum has used the expression "inalienable gun rights" but you.

That's why it's a straw man.

It is not a strawman, as I have already proven.

You just keep repeating nonsense about a supposed position that NOBODY SUPPORTS.

Your post is just a straw man.

this is not a strawman. I have proven that it is not a strawman. If you have an actual criticism of my argument, I am interested in hearing it, but it certainly is no strawman.

Not ONE PERSON.

You haven't proved jack shit, except your inability to see the folly of your argument.

A) it is not a strawman, since many people make this argument.

B) it is perfectly constitutional for national, state and local governments to pass laws that restrict gun ownership as I stated in the bolded section of the OP.

:nuke:

I'm done with your crap for this evening. I'm going out for a cocktail and some dinner.

BFN

I wonder why you still have not read the OP.

Do you have some example of that poster claiming (for instance) that jailing someone duly convicted of a serious crime is a violation

of their inalienable rights? I'll skip to the end, for the benefit of onlookers: You do not.


No wonder you hate 'classic logic'.

It's a big fat stink-pickle.

Washington State:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Fifth Amendment US Constitution No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


There you go Dubs, If you prove yourself unfit to exercise your Second Amendment rights you can lose the rights and no one here has ever said different

Nice straw person (don't want to be sexist) though

First Amendment to the United States Constitution



Quite a different sense than 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
The key phrase of course - 'well regulated'.

It does not say sort of regulated, regulated in some parts of the country, regulated only in certain venues, regulated for sane people. The intent for regulation is as clear as day. However, the founding fathers left it up to the states and our good sense to determine when, where and how to regulate.

In any case, I am pretty sure 'well regulated' does not mean let everyone and anyone have a gun.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

any court which strikes down a state or local ban on firearms is usurping a legislative power and abusing judicial authority.

This arguement has been done and done and done

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

Samuel Adams Federalist 29 well regulated in this context means well trained.

But you knew that

Holding and Rule (Scalia)
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

DC V. Heller

But you knew that too

= instant loss of credibility.

so you throw an association fallacy. Maybe in your case it's phallus-y

Inquiring minds, etc.

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia"

Scalia is simply wrong about this. Scalia is often wrong about a great many things, citing him as a judicial expert = instant loss of credibility on this site.

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Adams proves Scalia is wrong. His reading is clearly that a person should be required to obtain training that would entitle them to the "character of a well-regulated militia."

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf



In this context, regulated meant like your watch or your colon.

quoting novels...Jesus H. Christ.

of that period?

Of course not. That would be "just silly."

See my sigline.

Yeah, that isn't a viable argument at all...

It's called arguing from definition, and it beats the living hell out of a genetic fallacy...

Scalia is simply wrong about this. Scalia is often wrong about a great many things, citing him as a judicial expert = instant loss of credibility on this site.

Like it or not, this is now SETTLED CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

If you want to ignore the law of the land, it won't affect my credibility one bit.

But you know that.

"Congress shall make no law"

That is only a restriction on Congress, not the states, not the counties, not the cities.

"shall not be infringed"

That is absolute. Shall not be infringed, without restriction, meaning NOBODY can infringe, not Congress, not states, counties or cities.

"Well regulated"

Does not mean controlled by the government. There is ample evidence that in that time and in the context of militias, "well regulated" meant well trained and equipped.

The militia, consisting of ALL able-bodied citizens, should be well trained and equipped.

They become well equipped by keeping and bearing their own arms.

Why isn't the key phrase, say, "shall not be infringed"? After all, the prefatory clause is ancillary; it does not make sense by itself, as the operative clause does. Or indeed, "the right of the people"?

Actually, the notion of not letting "everyone and anyone have a gun" is contained in the phrase "the right of the people." Back in the 18th century, the standard punishment for a felony (which at the time were almost entirely mala in se, rather than mala prohibita like growing hemp or providing false information to a government official even though the government official is an undercover federal agent) was either death or banishment; either way, as a convicted felon, you ceased to be one of "the people." Along similar lines, the insane weren't considered to count as "people" either.

I've consistently argued on this forum that what the prefatory clause does is explain why it's actually in the government's interest not to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Namely that, in the (these days, admittedly highly unlikely) event of an armed insurrection or a foreign invasion, it is actively in the interest of the state to have available in the recruiting pool as many citizens as possible who are already skilled in at least the basics of weapons handling and marksmanship.

And the remarkable thing is, I've never had anyone take issue with my interpretation. I've seen it ignored many a time, but nobody's ever said "I think you're wrong in that interpretation" and present a reasoned argument to support that opinion.

The core concept is effective self defense and historically through the present day it is being denied to the poor, women, and minorities. Its is classist and racist in its roots and in its practice today. Your failure to acknowledge such disparities makes your incessant posting of anti gun topics easily identifiable for what it is, trolling with stinky bait.

"historically through the present day it is being denied to the poor, women, and minorities."

Are people denied the "right" to purchase a firearm based on their income, gender or ethic/religious status? Where? If you can find an example we should certainly turn our efforts toward

If you can't...well then...

Then add in some of the restrictions in CA and even Federal law that stop the production and selling of lower cost handguns.

Or so THEY thought .

where the Sullivan act takes precedent over the 14th amendment. The law has been abused by prejudiced individuals, but that does not mean that the act itself is discriminatory, merely that some individuals are prejudiced.

And the fact that "may issue" was created so that white sheriffs could deny permits to black people. Like Martin Luther King Jr., who applied for a gun permit for protection after his house was firebombed, and he was denied.

And the fact that open carry was banned in California in order to disarm the Black Panthers. By no less than the Republicans Saint Ronnie, in fact.

And the fact that in Chicago, where no one else was allowed to own a handgun, there was a specific exemption for the city aldermen. Because if you were a powerful elected official, THEN your life was worth protecting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090103836.html



The cost of the gun? $275.


Oh, and I'm sure benEzra can tell you more, but NC has some pretty heinous gun laws that were passed in the wake of the 60's civil rights unrest-



In the late 60's? That 'moral character' check? Skin color.

is a giant strawman, implying that I support any law that discriminates based on race.

Hey, municipalities are going to charge money for services that they provide. I don't see any way around that. Should the fees be less, sure, but should they be free...certainly not.

It costs me money to drive to the polling station, it costs me money to purchase a computer and to get access to the interwebs...but these aren't restrictions on my first amendment rights.

Neither are they imposed by the government as intentional impediments to the exercise of constitutionally protected rights.

I gave you examples.

I didn't imply that you endorsed it, I merely answered your question.

You can read the laws of Southern states, from the ante-bellum period, through Jim Crow, and into the modern era to get a basic history of how gun laws have been used to discriminate against Blacks. You can read the debate over the Sullivan Laws (that's "context" to some) and see the animosity against Italians and others. Get busy with your research.

I think you said it best: the reason you post this crap is to "get under their skins." Not much integrity in your "argument."

A legend in your own mind.

But let's get to the meat..



Taken in context, Jody is saying that between the ACLU and the NRA, you have someone fighting for all your rights. I dare say, being more familiar with his posts than you appear to be, he didn't assert that the right is unlimited, as you seem to be insinuating. His language comes from the PA & VT constitutions, as well as the Declaration of Independence- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (unalienable and inalienable were used interchangeably.)

I'd also note that Jody's quote has nothing to do with carrying a gun. While the second amendment does, indeed protect the right to bear ('carry'), this isn't part of the quote you cited.



In 36 states, those who are mentally ill to a severe degree are not allowed to vote- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/us/19vote.html?_r=3

They're also not allowed to enter into legally binding contracts (for the same reason that minors can't), they may also be denied the right to travel (involuntary commitment), the right to privacy (while committed).

No right is unlimited. First amendment restrictions (such as laws against slander and libel) predate the constitution (from English Common Law). The right to 'life and liberty' were infringed by putting people in prison or killing them for capital crimes. Jody wasn't claiming the second amendment is unlimited.



See Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20-



The right doesn't only protect members of the press, nor does it only extend to sentiments related to the security of freedom in a state.

But the fact that you're regurgitating topics already covered ad nauseum between you and me (among others) shouldn't surprise me.



If your concept of 'inalienable' is that it can't be limited, then you're shit out of luck. There is no such right.

Certain actions that many have claimed as 'free speech' are illegal- such as incitement to violence, slander, and libel. If I were an Aztec descendant, I couldn't perform human sacrifice under the auspices of the first amendment, either. Polygamy is illegal, even though it played a prominent role in certain religions. Rastafarians don't get an exception from drug law for religious purposes.

What utter tripe and codswallop.

To remove language about annihilation. It was a mistake to use that wording, since it gives posters a reason to focus vitriol on me, rather than addressing the argument.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

Changed from Locke's original: Life, Liberty and Property...because the crafters of the DOI (not the document we are discussing) did not wish to make ownership of property a universal right. You don't need a gun (property) to pursue happiness, nor do you need one to defend yourself.

"In 36 states, those who are mentally ill to a severe degree are not allowed to vote"

These laws are clearly anti-democratic in my view, as are laws restricting the rights of felons to vote for any period of time, including the period of their actual incarceration. Disenfranchising citizens is uncool, and the number of these people who would actually vote is not likely to substantially effect elections. But now you're conflating voting with speech and religious freedom. I intentionally did not mention voting in the OP, since it is a different issue. The constitution originally restricted voting rights to property owning males and voting rights were intentionally omitted from the BOR.

"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject.."

Proves nothing. ANY PERSON on ANY SUBJECT...no well-organized anything.

"Certain actions that many have claimed as 'free speech' are illegal- such as incitement to violence, slander, and libel. If I were an Aztec descendant, I couldn't perform human sacrifice under the auspices of the first amendment, either."

Your rights end where my body begins. Slander and libel are extremely difficult to prove in our system, for good reason. See Hustler v. Falwell. I do not want to move toward the British system in this respect.

My point stands...one of these rights is not like the others.

The first amendment is already 'infringed', if by that you mean there are any restrictions. Religion is infringed (no polygamy, no ganja for rastas). You can't associate with felons after release from prison (free association).. the fifth amendment is 'infringed'- you can be forced to testify, if given immunity.

There is no right that is unlimited. None. Nada. Zip.

No right is like another right. All are limited to differing degrees. No two are exactly alike.

How you made it through my post and chose to ignore it in a reply tickles me to no end. I understand why- because it refutes the core premise you tried to make.

Care to try again?

"Religion is infringed (no polygamy, no ganja for rastas)."

Polygamy is illegal for a very good reason. Polygamy, in practice, leads to the abuse of young women (and girls). The old pervert's rights end where the young girl's rights begin.

Drugs of all kinds should be legal and the illegality of drugs has very little to do with restricting 1st amendment religious freedoms, though in some cases these laws result in some occasions in which they violates first amendment principles. That's one reason that these laws are unconstitutional in my view.

"How you made it through my post and chose to ignore it in a reply tickles me to no end"

What did I ignore? I thought I responded to each of your arguments.

.. and all rights are limited in some fashion or another.

Now, in light of that, what was the point of your OP?

As I have explained it to you.

Gun ownership is not a fundamental right. Many free societies operate without regarding it as such. Conflating things that are fundamentally different is dishonest demagoguery.

"Gun ownership is not a fundamental right. Many free societies operate without regarding it as such. Conflating things that are fundamentally different is dishonest demagoguery."

Gun ownership IS a protected fundamental right in the legal sense. It most definitely and certainly is. And no amount of pretending that it isn't, or repetition of such, will change that.

Its nice that many free societies operate without regarding it as such, but our society isn't those others. And it isn't going to be those others. In our society the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. Period.

Several European countries have state sponsorship of religion.

Many countries function without freedoms we hold dear--freedoms having nothing to do with guns. Germany bans holocaust denial--is free speech therefore "not a fundamental right"?

The real dishonest demagoguery is using a term like "free societies" that is undefined and that can me manipulated like silly putty to suit your convenience.

It's been thoroughly established in jurisprudence that government at any level in the United States bears no responsibility to protect individual citizens from harm resulting from criminal behavior, and no liability for failing to provide such protection, even when that failure is a result of incompetence on the part of the government's agents (Warren v. District of Columbia), negligence that would be considered criminal if committed by a private citizen (DeShaney v. Winnebago), or direct violation of statutory law and a court order (Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales).

Given that government has consistently refused (as asserted by the executive and affirmed by the judiciary) to accept responsibility to protect individual citizens, and liability for failing to do so, government has, by dint of this fact, abdicated any and all authority ("authority" in the sense of a legitimate exercise of power) to deprive individual citizens of the means to protect themselves. You might not find too many lawyers who might see it that way, but the notion that authority is the legitimate exercise of power, and that to be legitimate, it has to be linked to responsibility is Political Science 101.

Given the current state of technology, the single most effective means of self-protection is firearms. Chemical sprays cannot be relied upon to incapacitate an assailant; the incapacitating effects of tasers and "stun guns" wear off rapidly when the target is no longer subject to an electrical charge. At present, guns remain the big equalizer, allowing a person with a modicum of training to best an assailant with superior physique and/or close-combat skills. Guns were one of the nails in the coffin of feudalism for that very reason.

How about the opinion of Justice Stevens?

"Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized: '(T)he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.'"

Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833, 848 (1992)

The famous exposition quoted here in Casey was originally written by Justice Harlan in his dissent in Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 543 (1961).

That eloquent explanation that all our rights exist beyond their enumeration, that they exist on the same plane within a seamless philosophical fabric of liberty is a long standing favorite of Stevens. Besides adding his concurrence here in Casey, he also cites Harlan's dissent in his concurrence in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 169 (1973) and in his dissent in Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 306-07 (1994).

By cutting out a right specifically sewn into the fabric of the Bill of Rights you threaten the entire concept of liberty.

"By cutting out a right specifically sewn into the fabric of the Bill of Rights you threaten the entire concept of liberty."

I am not in favor of repealing the 2nd amendment, I merely support sensible restrictions on gun ownership based on public safety.

There are certain limitations on abortion (privacy) rights (many of which I disagree with), but in no way should abortion be conflated with gun control. A woman's body is her own property, a gun is not part of her body.

"includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.'"

Bans on certain firearms or magazines (CLIPS...hehehe), bans in certain localities are not purposeless restraints. Public safety is not purposeless.

You must be writing too fast--you can't possibly mean this stuff:

"A woman's body is her own property..." So is her gun. That part of the argument is neither here nor there.

"...a gun is not part of her body." Neither are her papers and effects, or her home, all of which are constitutionally protected.

The pieces don't make any apparent sense apart, and when you put them together they clash. Are you implying that only a woman's body is protected because only her body is her property and therefore guns aren't protected? And where is your imaginary opponent who conflates abortion and gun control? I respect the right to free expression. I also respect the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to not be required to incriminate oneself. I conflate nothing by respecting the entire Bill of Rights.

"Bans on certain firearms or magazines (CLIPS...hehehe), bans in certain localities are not purposeless restraints. Public safety is not purposeless."

Torturing a murderer into telling where the bodies where hidden--and thus giving the state enough evidence to put him away for life--would not be purposeless either. Public safety is not purposeless.

I am not in favor of repealing the 2nd amendment, I merely support sensible restrictions on gun ownership based on public safety.

I doubt that anyone on this forum would disagree with that statement, its vagueness notwithstanding.

yet the Op is filled with self-congratulating hyperbolic insensibility.

You should display that which you advocate. Maybe then you would get more traction.

Nonsense. Stop evading the point.

This says that the liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state, THEREFORE people in general--"any person"--can publish in any legal way.



This says that a well regulated Milita is essential to the liberty of a free state, THEREFORE people in general--"the people"--deserve to have their pre-existing right to keep and bear arms preserved from infringement.

Well before Scalia was born, the Supreme Court said as much. They said that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. Just like people can publish within the bounds of the law.

The symmetry between these statements is extreme. The liberty of the press parallels the security of freedom in a state. "Any person" parallels "the people", (which is why "any person" has the right to keep and bear arms, to be secure in her papers and effects or to assemble with other people). The right to publish parallels the right to keep and bear arms. Both the liberty to publish and the right to keep and bear arms are restricted so that they do not violate the rights of others. And in both cases, the protection extends beyond what is declared to be directly necessary for security.

The symmetry isn't complete--it couldn't be. The statements aren't IDENTICAL. You can always make an "argument" based on minutia: "a well regulated Militia" is only mentioned in one, "the liberty of the press" is only mentioned in the other. But people who need the statements to be identical can't be persuaded--by any evidence.

when measured on the anti-gun scale.

There, I said something nice.

(Of course, measured on the non-logic challenged scale, you nailed it X-Digger: "What utter tripe and codswallop." Indeed.)

otherwise I would remove that language.

...institutionalized where their speech and ability to practice their religions of choice are greatly curtailed?

Is one not like the others? I dunno.

And yet another demonstrates a profound ignorance of what inalienable rights are and their significance in our Constitutional system.

This is true, but god did not invent speech or religion either. We invented these things.

"Speech, Religion, and Bear Arms." and "One of them is not like the others."

Speech and religion are the same right. You can not have one without the other. Infringing on one infringes on the other. So instead of saying, 'one of them is not like the others,' you should say 'one is not like the other one.'

i.e., you can't falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. And how about libel laws? How about laws forbidding too many media outlets in a geographical area?

How many religions can't use traditional herbs because they are a controlled substance under narcotics laws?


You can't own a gun if your right to do so has been removed by due process of law. Background checks are checks to see if the right has been removed by due process of law, that's all.

"The right to bear arms is already restricted significantly, and James Madison intended it to be restricted--which is why the 2nd amendment includes the "well-regulated militia" clause."


Nobody says it isn't already restricted significantly. Some are trying to lessen the degree of significance, in fact.

And "regulated" meant "equipped and or functioning" in the vernacular of Madisons time.


As to whether its is or is not like the others?


Its EXACTLY like the others. Its one, in a list of many restrictions placed on government.

What the bill of rights is, is well known and widely established. What you're pretending, is that the second amendment is a restriction on people, among a list of enumerated restrictions on government which protect rights from governmental interference.

Am I claiming that the restriction on government is absolute? No.

But I also don't think government has wide lattitude in ignoring it either.

Nor should it.

..... in the context of the 2A

"Militia" referred to all able-bodied males of fighting age. Today we recognize that term in a more expansive light. Madison was not granting rights to the government in the 2A, or anything else in the BOR.


Your attempt at parsing rights recognized in the BOR falls very, very flat. Such selective interpretations of our inalienable rights are harmful to no not just our party, but our nation as well.

The rest of your post is drivel, of course - but I got a few more chuckles along the way... :)

Apparently not. What a complete joke this entire OP is. I will not read beyond the very first lie.

You said, "This is another part in my zillion part series in which I annihilate the bumpersticker arguments made by the gun "rights" crowd. The bumpersticker argument in this case is "there is an inalienable right to carry guns." Now before I am accused of presenting a strawman, which is a predictable accusation, let's short-circuit that crap right away:".

Then linked to this post as proof of the bold quotation above...this is the complete post, in it's entirety, you cited as proof:

372936, Consider joining ACLU & NRA. You would then support ALL inalienable rights since the NRA supports
Posted by jody on Sat Feb-05-11 06:23 PM

the Second Amendment and ACLU supports all the others, excluding the 2nd.

Now where in that post is the quote you are attributing to it? Answer: NO PLACE, IT ISN"T THERE. Can you produce an actual post you are quoting? No? Then your entire premise is a lie.

Further, the post you linked doesn't even represent, by any sane person, what you are attributing to it. What a joke.

are losing judicially, recent court rulings are affirming the rights of those who own guns.

You are losing legislatively, states around the country are liberalizing their gun laws.

You are losing financially, the NRA and other gun rights organizations have plenty of funding while gun control organizations are begging for money.

You are losing factually, as crime continues to drop despite the increase in gun sales.

The right to life/liberty and the right to defend that life/liberty predates the consitution and holds true whether "recognized" or not. All the 2nd Amendment does is protect the means and articles befitting excercise of that right. Naturally, and the courts have upheld, that these means should include the most effective tools available - personal firearms.

So if you believe in the inalienable right to life/liberty and the right to protect one's self... then it would be intellectually dishonest to argue that using one of the most effective means available is not protected under the umbrella of the right to self protection. That would be like saying the right to free speech and press only covers some means of communication, but not the more effective means.

Said otherwise, by logical extention of other inalienable rights, there is an inalienable right to keep/bear guns.

but thanks for demonstrating the wisdom of Proverbs 17:12.

Proverbs 17:12 (New International Version, ©2010)

" 12 Better to meet a bear robbed of her cubs
than a fool bent on folly."

I forgot that one. It's applicable in so many parts of my life today.

God did not place that gun in your hand. Smith & Wesson did. God and Smith & Wesson are separate entities.

No one disputes this. What is at issue is not the instrument, but the concept that all creatures are born with the right to defend themselves. The actual instrument used to do this is mostly irrelevant. It so happens that firearms are currently one of the best tools suitable for that task.

So let's set aside, for all times, this hyperbolic hyperventilation about "inalienable gun rights." It's bullshit and it is hereby debunked. The right to bear arms is already restricted significantly, and James Madison intended it to be restricted--which is why the 2nd amendment includes the "well-regulated militia" clause. There are REAL inalienable rights (like speech and religion) and then there are gun rights.

Let's take a look at the second amendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes, the second amendment mentions militias. It says they are necessary to a free state.

The first question is, why are they necessary to a free state? While I await your answer, HankyDubs, I'll point out a couple of things here: Firstly, the militias spoken of by the second amendment have not existed since 1903. Secondly, you'll notice that it is the right of the People to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed, not the right of the militias.

You are right about one thing, the right to keep and bear arms is different from the rest of the rights enumerated in the Constitution. It is more powerful than all of them. The right to project force through a firearm is arguably more powerful than the right to speak, or to believe in whatever superstition suits you. It is often said that the right to keep and bear arms is the teeth of liberty. I agree. You can still oppress a man who can speak and practice religion. It's harder to oppress a man with a gun.

Finally, I would point out that I don't see how "religion", which is an artificial construct created by man, is any more "real" or inalienable" a right than the right to defend oneself.

Nor does He tell us to put them down. But we do have to be careful with how we use them.

This quote is from Him as he was informing his Disciples that soon they were going to be on their own in a world that very much hated them.

Luke 22:36

"36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

What He does want is for us to not rely upon them as a means of conflict resolution. This happened later that same night...

Matthew 26:50-52

"50 Jesus replied, “Do what you came for, friend.”

Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

He even took the good time and trouble to heal the man who Peter had just hacked across the ear. Even though this guy was there to see Jesus tortured and executed.

Luke 22:51

"51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.

I don't think you invoking God into your argument does anything at all for you.

Your side has lost. The horse has left the barn and the door still won't close, but you're more than welcome to continue to huff and puff and waste your life fussing that people own guns. You can't really do shit about it. I know that drives you crazy, and for some reason that makes me grin.

and hasn't "hereby debunked" a damn thing.

Bill of Rights refers to inalienable rights of the people, individually.

There is no exception.

Unless you're an authoritarian who believes in interpreting our rights as narrowly as possible in order to give the government maximum control over us.

freedom to speak in public, move about, attend the church of their choice, i.e. if voices told that person to preach the killing of Jews they would be forbidden to incite violence.


All rights assume the person enjoying them is rationale and responsible.

You cannot use abortion to cover incestuous rape. You cannot use the right to privacy to cover insider stock trading. Religious freedom does not cover genital mutilation.


And since when do YOU get to decide when a woman is allowed to protect herself from a rapist or a violent ex?

When do you get to decide when people are allowed to defend themselves from racist attacks?

Those people have an inalienable right to life, liberty and happiness and the gun may be their only means of preserving those rights.


Perhaps you should take another look at your annihilation count.