5 ms·

It doesn't matter whether you "buy" the arguments about why gun ownership is necessary. It's a guaranteed right codified in our country's founding document, end

It doesn't matter whether you "buy" the arguments about why gun ownership is necessary. It's a guaranteed right codified in our country's founding document, end of discussion.

misnome 11y ago
I think you mean an "Amendment" e.g. a "Change" to your countries founding document, subject to interpretation that pretty much throws out the first half. If you are going by the founding document, then you wouldn't have the rights anyway (and a hell of a lot less in general) And if amendments are permanent, well, then prohibition should still be in force.
- jakeogh 11y ago
  The amendments don't grant rights; they limit government. That's why we call them inalienable rights. You cant "amend away" these things. Of course that doesnt stop power from trying. Preamble to the (confusingly named) Bill of Rights: The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > The amendments don't grant rights; they limit government. They limit government by defining, in the fundamental law, rights that are prortected against government encroachment. Those aren't mutually exclusive alternatives, one is the means by which the other is achieved. > That's why we call them inalienable rights. You cant "amend away" these things. The quasi-religious belief that there are rights that exist "in nature" prior to law and which all governments are obliged to observe is a popular one -- and was with the founders -- and part of the basis for the use of the term "inalienable right". However, the exact parameters of such "inalienable" rights are far from uniformly agreed even among those who subscribe to the belief that they exist. You absolutely can alter which of the rights that some people believe to be inalienable are protected by a government through amendments; note, for instance, that quite a lot of people from the time of the founding through (and no doubt past) the time when this was, in law, settled at the point of a bayonet by the 13th Amendment, thought that the widely-accepted-as-inalienable right to property included the right to hold human beings -- and particularly for whites to hold blacks -- as personal property.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      > You absolutely can alter which of the rights that some people believe to be inalienable are protected by a government through amendments Yes and no. The point of the "inalienable rights" was that they were given to people by God, and therefore nobody - not king or president, not parliament or congress - has the authority to take them away. They may have the power to declare that we don't have them, but they don't have the legitimate authority to do so. But now we (as a society) no longer believe in God, and no longer believe that we are made in His image. When that changed, "inalienable rights" (in the original meaning) died - except for those who still believe in God as creator of humans.
      - oldmanjay 11y ago
        The concept of inalienable rights does not require supernatural powers for validation. Saying we have these rights merely by being born human is exactly as logical as relying upon creatures whose existence cannot be proven. Nothing has been taken away by society's turn from mysticism. In fact, I feel that saying my natural right to speak, to defend myself, to live privately as I choose, is much stronger than if it is simply derived from a posited creator. I feel these rights are clearly mine by birth, and they have never been merely granted to me, not even by a currently-favored fairy tale.
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        But why does being born give you the natural right to speak, to defend yourself, and to live privately as you choose? Looking back at the last few thousand years of human history, I see no basis for saying that those are inherent human rights that are yours simply because you were born. A deist would say that humans inherently have those rights (from God), but that human governments and societies have illegitimately suppressed them. You (I suspect) would also say that human governments and societies have illegitimately suppressed them. But given that humans often have not enjoyed those rights, what basis (other than simply asserting that it is so) do you have for claiming that humans have those rights?
voronoff 11y ago
Is it? http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856.html http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-seco...
baby 11y ago
> It's a guaranteed right codified in our country's founding document, end of discussion That doesn't mean you can't change it. You realize your constitution is pretty recent right?

It doesn't matter whether you "buy" the arguments about why gun ownership is necessary. It's a guaranteed right codified in our country's founding document, end of discussion.

misnome 11y ago

I think you mean an "Amendment" e.g. a "Change" to your countries founding document, subject to interpretation that pretty much throws out the first half. If you are going by the founding document, then you wouldn't have the rights anyway (and a hell of a lot less in general) And if amendments are permanent, well, then prohibition should still be in force.

jakeogh 11y ago
The amendments don't grant rights; they limit government. That's why we call them inalienable rights. You cant "amend away" these things. Of course that doesnt stop power from trying. Preamble to the (confusingly named) Bill of Rights: The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The amendments don't grant rights; they limit government. They limit government by defining, in the fundamental law, rights that are prortected against government encroachment. Those aren't mutually exclusive alternatives, one is the means by which the other is achieved. > That's why we call them inalienable rights. You cant "amend away" these things. The quasi-religious belief that there are rights that exist "in nature" prior to law and which all governments are obliged to observe is a popular one -- and was with the founders -- and part of the basis for the use of the term "inalienable right". However, the exact parameters of such "inalienable" rights are far from uniformly agreed even among those who subscribe to the belief that they exist. You absolutely can alter which of the rights that some people believe to be inalienable are protected by a government through amendments; note, for instance, that quite a lot of people from the time of the founding through (and no doubt past) the time when this was, in law, settled at the point of a bayonet by the 13th Amendment, thought that the widely-accepted-as-inalienable right to property included the right to hold human beings -- and particularly for whites to hold blacks -- as personal property.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    > You absolutely can alter which of the rights that some people believe to be inalienable are protected by a government through amendments Yes and no. The point of the "inalienable rights" was that they were given to people by God, and therefore nobody - not king or president, not parliament or congress - has the authority to take them away. They may have the power to declare that we don't have them, but they don't have the legitimate authority to do so. But now we (as a society) no longer believe in God, and no longer believe that we are made in His image. When that changed, "inalienable rights" (in the original meaning) died - except for those who still believe in God as creator of humans.
    - oldmanjay 11y ago
      The concept of inalienable rights does not require supernatural powers for validation. Saying we have these rights merely by being born human is exactly as logical as relying upon creatures whose existence cannot be proven. Nothing has been taken away by society's turn from mysticism. In fact, I feel that saying my natural right to speak, to defend myself, to live privately as I choose, is much stronger than if it is simply derived from a posited creator. I feel these rights are clearly mine by birth, and they have never been merely granted to me, not even by a currently-favored fairy tale.
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        But why does being born give you the natural right to speak, to defend yourself, and to live privately as you choose? Looking back at the last few thousand years of human history, I see no basis for saying that those are inherent human rights that are yours simply because you were born. A deist would say that humans inherently have those rights (from God), but that human governments and societies have illegitimately suppressed them. You (I suspect) would also say that human governments and societies have illegitimately suppressed them. But given that humans often have not enjoyed those rights, what basis (other than simply asserting that it is so) do you have for claiming that humans have those rights?

voronoff 11y ago

Is it? http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856.html http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-seco...

baby 11y ago

> It's a guaranteed right codified in our country's founding document, end of discussion That doesn't mean you can't change it. You realize your constitution is pretty recent right?