4 ms·

Yea, I know. I am asking why not repeal this amendment, like the 21 amendment did for the 18th. Why have it as a "right"? If its not a right, then the governme

by rvo 9y ago

Yea, I know. I am asking why not repeal this amendment, like the 21 amendment did for the 18th. Why have it as a "right"? If its not a right, then the government can pass much stronger gun laws, including confiscations, etc. But still allows good citizens to own guns for hunting and stuff. Maybe even limit the number of guns per person, control the type of gun, etc. Just give enough so that country folks are happy with simple hunting rifles and cant do much damage.

Consultant32452 9y ago
I apologise because I usually abhor semantic arguments, but I feel in this case it might be illuminating. Rights are not granted by the Constitution. The founders believed rights were natural. The Constitution grants the government limited ability to infringe on our natural rights. So the question is not whether we should remove the right to bear arms from the Constitution, but whether or not we should grant the government the ability to infringe on our natural right to armed defense. The semantics are important because it illuminates the philosophy of rights and the Constitution, and perhaps that illumination may help you to understand how many people see it differently.
- rvo 9y ago
  I am precisely saying that Congress should be allowed to pass any type of gun laws. Right now, Congress cannot infringe on people's rights to bear arms due to 2A. I am saying Congress should be able to do that. They should be able to ban anything they want by passing laws. And if the people that they are representing want gun confiscations, Congress should pass laws for that too... Right now they cannot because the constitution doesn't allow it. If you repeal 2A, then they (Congress) will be able to do much more about guns.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    All I'm trying to point out is that your philosophy of law is the exact opposite of the philosophy of the Constitution. You seem to be working from a position where you believe all power lies in the state except where the state has so graciously limited itself by kindly granting us rights to things like free speech, religion, or armed defense. The Constitution is written from the opposite direction, that all power lies in the people and the Constitution is the mechanism by which we grant limited authority to the government. In fact, this was a big part of the debate around passing the Bill of Rights in the first place, that it would confuse this issue. Repealing the 1st Amendment would not remove our right to free speech. It would simply remove the codification of that right and we would revert to natural law which still would include free speech. In order for the government to infringe on our natural right to free speech we the people would have to pass an amendment explicitly granting the government the authority to do so. The same of course applies to the 2A. This is essentially the philosophy of the founders and the limited government crowd you're going to be arguing against if you want to regulate guns. I'm hoping that you'll see that this isn't just a semantic difference in the mechanism by which you might accomplish gun restrictions, but a deeper difference in the belief system around the philosophy of law. I'm not trying to change your mind about the 2A here, but to help you relate to the small government crowd with the way you talk about the law. You're not trying to revert a power granted to us by the government, you're trying to subvert natural law.
    - rvo 9y ago
      I am very well aware of the natural rights theory developed during the age of enlightenment. We have given up our natural right to kill another person. I am suggesting we should give up our natrual right to bear arms. The idea with natural rights has always been that we have unlimited rights (and actually enumerating them can be problematic) but we give some up to live in a society where we can pursue life liberty and happiness. I am saying Americans via their representatives should give up their right to bear arms, remove it from being enumerated, and then allow strong legislation that outlaws weapons just like we have done with murder. If an amendment is needed then so be it "Congress HAS the right to strictly control guns in order to protect life". Does that make sense?
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        I think we're talking past each other. I understand your position, I was just trying to help you communicate in the language of your target audience.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Rights are not granted by the Constitution Yes, they are. > The founders believed rights were natural. They may have had a moral belief that certain rights were natural, and that may have been the basis for them incorporating the rights into the Constitution, but moral beliefs are not the same thing as material facts.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    It's right in the preamble. "We the people of the United States... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" All powers, including the power to establish the Constitution in the first place, are derived from the people. Section 8 explicitly lays out which powers we the people are granting to the government: borrow money, regulate commerce with foreign nations, establish a post office, etc. If powers are not explicitly granted to the government, it doesn't have them.

by rvo 9y ago

Consultant32452 9y ago

I apologise because I usually abhor semantic arguments, but I feel in this case it might be illuminating. Rights are not granted by the Constitution. The founders believed rights were natural. The Constitution grants the government limited ability to infringe on our natural rights. So the question is not whether we should remove the right to bear arms from the Constitution, but whether or not we should grant the government the ability to infringe on our natural right to armed defense. The semantics are important because it illuminates the philosophy of rights and the Constitution, and perhaps that illumination may help you to understand how many people see it differently.

rvo 9y ago
I am precisely saying that Congress should be allowed to pass any type of gun laws. Right now, Congress cannot infringe on people's rights to bear arms due to 2A. I am saying Congress should be able to do that. They should be able to ban anything they want by passing laws. And if the people that they are representing want gun confiscations, Congress should pass laws for that too... Right now they cannot because the constitution doesn't allow it. If you repeal 2A, then they (Congress) will be able to do much more about guns.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  All I'm trying to point out is that your philosophy of law is the exact opposite of the philosophy of the Constitution. You seem to be working from a position where you believe all power lies in the state except where the state has so graciously limited itself by kindly granting us rights to things like free speech, religion, or armed defense. The Constitution is written from the opposite direction, that all power lies in the people and the Constitution is the mechanism by which we grant limited authority to the government. In fact, this was a big part of the debate around passing the Bill of Rights in the first place, that it would confuse this issue. Repealing the 1st Amendment would not remove our right to free speech. It would simply remove the codification of that right and we would revert to natural law which still would include free speech. In order for the government to infringe on our natural right to free speech we the people would have to pass an amendment explicitly granting the government the authority to do so. The same of course applies to the 2A. This is essentially the philosophy of the founders and the limited government crowd you're going to be arguing against if you want to regulate guns. I'm hoping that you'll see that this isn't just a semantic difference in the mechanism by which you might accomplish gun restrictions, but a deeper difference in the belief system around the philosophy of law. I'm not trying to change your mind about the 2A here, but to help you relate to the small government crowd with the way you talk about the law. You're not trying to revert a power granted to us by the government, you're trying to subvert natural law.
  - rvo 9y ago
    I am very well aware of the natural rights theory developed during the age of enlightenment. We have given up our natural right to kill another person. I am suggesting we should give up our natrual right to bear arms. The idea with natural rights has always been that we have unlimited rights (and actually enumerating them can be problematic) but we give some up to live in a society where we can pursue life liberty and happiness. I am saying Americans via their representatives should give up their right to bear arms, remove it from being enumerated, and then allow strong legislation that outlaws weapons just like we have done with murder. If an amendment is needed then so be it "Congress HAS the right to strictly control guns in order to protect life". Does that make sense?
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      I think we're talking past each other. I understand your position, I was just trying to help you communicate in the language of your target audience.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Rights are not granted by the Constitution Yes, they are. > The founders believed rights were natural. They may have had a moral belief that certain rights were natural, and that may have been the basis for them incorporating the rights into the Constitution, but moral beliefs are not the same thing as material facts.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  It's right in the preamble. "We the people of the United States... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" All powers, including the power to establish the Constitution in the first place, are derived from the people. Section 8 explicitly lays out which powers we the people are granting to the government: borrow money, regulate commerce with foreign nations, establish a post office, etc. If powers are not explicitly granted to the government, it doesn't have them.