4 ms·

> > All individual rights are carved out from the default government > Not sure this is how you meant it. If you mean to say that rights come from governments

by vageli 7y ago

> > All individual rights are carved out from the default government > Not sure this is how you meant it. If you mean to say that rights come from governments that is not quite correct, at least not in the US. > Rights, in the US, are not GRANTED by government, they are RECOGNIZED by the US Constitution to exist OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT (upper case is for emphasis only). In other words, these rights don't require government in order to exist. We are recognized to have them and government can't do a thing about it other than to respect and protect them. > This is a massive difference with other systems that lots of people, both inside and outside the US are not aware of. > Take the right to bare arms as an example. In most other nations, if it exists, this is a right granted by government to the people. In the US this is a right recognized by the constitution to exist despite and outside of government. > Here's the key difference between "grant" and "recognize": The government can't take away that which it does not own, did not and cannot grant. > An example of a right (well, a privilege) government can take away is your driver's license. They grant it and they can take it away. > In the case of firearms, the US government does not have the ability to confiscate weapons because that is not a right the government granted and, therefore, they don't have unilateral power to cancel that right with a simple bill. In fact, it takes a tremendously complex agreement across all States and the federal government to make any changes to the US Constitution (2/3 majority in the Senate, House and all 50 State Legislatures). Even that does not guarantee government to have the right to eliminate rights. This argument is a prime example against the point you are trying to make. With guns, the government is constantly eroding that right by narrowing the scope of what constitutes a legally permissible gun. Wicard vs Filburn is another example of government rewriting the limits of their power without the consent of the people. Why did prohibition require an amendment but drugs are scheduled today without the necessity for constitutional amendments? All organizations seek to expand their influence and power over time.

joshuamorton 7y ago
Prohibition didn't require an amendment, except insofar as the people pushing for it wanted to make it hard to overturn. State and local governments had outlawed alcohol since the founding. If outlawing alcohol were somehow special, that wouldn't have been possible.
- jeffdavis 7y ago
  "State and local governments had outlawed alcohol since the founding." That's because the scope of state power is very wide in the Constitution. The federal government is much more constrained (or was intended to be), and outlawing alcohol with an act of Congress would be a violation of the 10th Amendment. Interestingly, even the 1st Amendment did not originally prevent states from infringing on the freedom of speech. It begins "Congress shall make no law...". Later the 14th Amendment changed that through "incorporation", which is a process I don't fully understand.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    > The federal government is much more constrained (or was intended to be), and outlawing alcohol with an act of Congress would be a violation of the 10th Amendment. Commerce clause, among others. There are all kinds of federal regulations and bans that have been upheld as constitutional. Claiming that they aren't really is wishful, not legal, thinking. > Interestingly, even the 1st Amendment did not originally prevent states from infringing on the freedom of speech This isn't correct. It's the due process clause that is operative, and the supreme Court has ruled that states can't remove rights, including those technically protected only from the federal gov, without due process.
    - comex 7y ago
      They said “originally”, i.e. before the 14th Amendment, which contains the due process clause. Edit: There’s also a “due process” clause in the Fifth Amendment, but it’s not the one used for incorporation (although it’s been used for so-called “reverse incorporation”).
robomartin 7y ago
> All organizations seek to expand their influence and power over time This is true. IANAL, but my guess is that a lot of this mucking around with firearms regulations is because people have not said "enough!" and taken it all the way up to the US Supreme Court (except for a few cases I am aware of). In other words, can California (or any State) really prohibit magazines with more than 10 rounds? Can they really prohibit any kind of carry (concealed or not)? Where exactly is it that they --the government-- acquired the right to do such things. Again, let's get away from firearms and talk about free speech. This is a stupid example, but, let's say that CA passes a law that makes it illegal to say more than 5 expletives in one minute. Do they have the right and power to pass such a law? No, they don't. They don't have the power to restrict speech AT ALL, because this is a right that is recognized --NOT GRANTED-- in the US constitution. Government does not own it and cannot take it away. Many would then say: Well, you can't yell "fire" in a theater. Sure you can! Try it! Well, don't, you'll get in trouble for it. Freedom of speech does not mean you are free from the consequences of what you choose to say. That's another common misconception. You can say whatever you want. And you can enjoy the full consequences of what you said. The same is true of firearms. You can shoot them anywhere you want. And you can enjoy the consequences of your actions just as well. Just like you can drive your car into a tree if you want to. This is one of those topics that has been completely twisted and contorted by zealots. In the US it is very simple: Our rights do not come from government. Period. Which means they can't take them away. When they do overstep their bounds we have to go to the courts to put them back in their place. That happens from time to time when people have enough. I'll give you an example of just how ridiculous things can get. Here in California you basically can't protect yourself in any way. You can't conceal-carry a firearm (like in a purse or holster). You can't have a knife larger than something like a Swiss army knife. You can't have nunchuks, a pipe, a wooden staff, a baseball bat, a chain, nothing. You cannot legally go for a walk with some kind of a self-defense weapon other than a really mean dog or perhaps some pepper spray (2.5 ounces or less). In other words, I can't have two pieces of wood tied together with a rope. If you think about the concept of a truly free human being on this planet and then contemplate the idea of that person not being able to defend themselves against criminals, well, it's truly surreal. Like I said, IANAL, and I am not pro or anti firearm at all. I am neutral in this regard. I am looking at the Bill of Rights as a whole, not at any particular right. They are all co-equal and even interconnected. I just think some of the things we are seeing at State levels only exist because enough people haven't had enough and there hasn't been a "mother of all challenges" at the Supreme Court level. I mean, what's the use of having a Bill of Rights in the US Constitution if any schmuck at the State level can defecate all of these rights at will?

by vageli 7y ago

joshuamorton 7y ago

Prohibition didn't require an amendment, except insofar as the people pushing for it wanted to make it hard to overturn. State and local governments had outlawed alcohol since the founding. If outlawing alcohol were somehow special, that wouldn't have been possible.

jeffdavis 7y ago
"State and local governments had outlawed alcohol since the founding." That's because the scope of state power is very wide in the Constitution. The federal government is much more constrained (or was intended to be), and outlawing alcohol with an act of Congress would be a violation of the 10th Amendment. Interestingly, even the 1st Amendment did not originally prevent states from infringing on the freedom of speech. It begins "Congress shall make no law...". Later the 14th Amendment changed that through "incorporation", which is a process I don't fully understand.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  > The federal government is much more constrained (or was intended to be), and outlawing alcohol with an act of Congress would be a violation of the 10th Amendment. Commerce clause, among others. There are all kinds of federal regulations and bans that have been upheld as constitutional. Claiming that they aren't really is wishful, not legal, thinking. > Interestingly, even the 1st Amendment did not originally prevent states from infringing on the freedom of speech This isn't correct. It's the due process clause that is operative, and the supreme Court has ruled that states can't remove rights, including those technically protected only from the federal gov, without due process.
  - comex 7y ago
    They said “originally”, i.e. before the 14th Amendment, which contains the due process clause. Edit: There’s also a “due process” clause in the Fifth Amendment, but it’s not the one used for incorporation (although it’s been used for so-called “reverse incorporation”).

robomartin 7y ago

> All organizations seek to expand their influence and power over time This is true. IANAL, but my guess is that a lot of this mucking around with firearms regulations is because people have not said "enough!" and taken it all the way up to the US Supreme Court (except for a few cases I am aware of). In other words, can California (or any State) really prohibit magazines with more than 10 rounds? Can they really prohibit any kind of carry (concealed or not)? Where exactly is it that they --the government-- acquired the right to do such things. Again, let's get away from firearms and talk about free speech. This is a stupid example, but, let's say that CA passes a law that makes it illegal to say more than 5 expletives in one minute. Do they have the right and power to pass such a law? No, they don't. They don't have the power to restrict speech AT ALL, because this is a right that is recognized --NOT GRANTED-- in the US constitution. Government does not own it and cannot take it away. Many would then say: Well, you can't yell "fire" in a theater. Sure you can! Try it! Well, don't, you'll get in trouble for it. Freedom of speech does not mean you are free from the consequences of what you choose to say. That's another common misconception. You can say whatever you want. And you can enjoy the full consequences of what you said. The same is true of firearms. You can shoot them anywhere you want. And you can enjoy the consequences of your actions just as well. Just like you can drive your car into a tree if you want to. This is one of those topics that has been completely twisted and contorted by zealots. In the US it is very simple: Our rights do not come from government. Period. Which means they can't take them away. When they do overstep their bounds we have to go to the courts to put them back in their place. That happens from time to time when people have enough. I'll give you an example of just how ridiculous things can get. Here in California you basically can't protect yourself in any way. You can't conceal-carry a firearm (like in a purse or holster). You can't have a knife larger than something like a Swiss army knife. You can't have nunchuks, a pipe, a wooden staff, a baseball bat, a chain, nothing. You cannot legally go for a walk with some kind of a self-defense weapon other than a really mean dog or perhaps some pepper spray (2.5 ounces or less). In other words, I can't have two pieces of wood tied together with a rope. If you think about the concept of a truly free human being on this planet and then contemplate the idea of that person not being able to defend themselves against criminals, well, it's truly surreal. Like I said, IANAL, and I am not pro or anti firearm at all. I am neutral in this regard. I am looking at the Bill of Rights as a whole, not at any particular right. They are all co-equal and even interconnected. I just think some of the things we are seeing at State levels only exist because enough people haven't had enough and there hasn't been a "mother of all challenges" at the Supreme Court level. I mean, what's the use of having a Bill of Rights in the US Constitution if any schmuck at the State level can defecate all of these rights at will?